/•) 


LIBRARY 

OF  THE  '  r 

Theological  Seminary, 

PRINCETON,  N.  J. 

BT  1101  . F58  1866 
Fisher,  George  Park,  1827- 

si  1909. 

Essays  on  the  supernatural 
B  origin  of  Christianity 


7 


* 


t 


V 


t 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 

' 


https://archive.org/details/essaysonsupernatOOfish_O 


» 


r 


/ 


\ 


< 


* 


/ 


*  / 


i 


ESSAYS 


ON  THE 


SUPERNATURAL 

\ 


WITH  SPECIAL  REFERENCE  TU  THE 


THEORIES  OF  RENAN,  STRAUSS,  AND 
THE  TUBINGEN  SCHOOL. 


BY 

REV.  GEORGE  P.  -FISHER,  M.  A. 

PROFESSOR  OF  CHURCH  HISTORY  IN  YALE  COLLEGE. 


NEW  YORK: 

CHARLES  SCRIBNER  &  CO.,  124  GRAND  STREET. 

1860. 


Entered,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1 S65,  by 
CHARLES  SCRIBNER  &  CO., 

In  the  Clerk’s  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  Stales  for  the 
Southern  District  of  New  York. 


JOHN  F.  TROW  *  CO., 

PRIXTERS,  STEREOTYPE  RSI,  ff  ELECTROTYPERS, 


PREFACE. 


Although  this  volume  does  not  claim  the  charac¬ 
ter  of  a  complete  treatise,  yet  the  Essays  which  com¬ 
pose  it  form  a  connected  whole  and  deal  with  the  most 
important  aspects  of  the  general  theme  under  which 
they  are  placed.  That  theme  is  the  origin  of  the 
religion  of  Christ — whether  it  be  “  from  heaven  or  of 
men.”  The  validity  of  the  distinction  between  the 
Natural  and  the  Supernatural  is  assumed,  and  some¬ 
thing  is  done  in  various  parts  of  the  work — for  exam¬ 
ple,  in  the  Essay  on  Miracles — to  elucidate  this  dis¬ 
tinction.  The  fact  of  the  constant  presence  and 
agency  of  God  in  Nature  is  held  to  be  perfectly  con¬ 
sistent  with  the  proposition  that  the  world  is  a  reality 
distinct  from  Him. 

This  being  his  theme,  the  author  has  deliberately 
abstained,  as  far  as  was  practicable,  from  discussing 
the  special  questions  involved  in  the  subject  of  Inspira¬ 
tion,  such  as  the  alleged  discrepancies  between  the 


IV 


PREFACE. 


various  Gospel  narratives.  The  question  here  con¬ 
sidered  is  not  that  of  Inspiration,  but  of  Revelation. 
A  great  advantage  is  secured  by  keeping  these  two 
topics  apart,  and  I  have  ,  given  heed  to  the  canon  of 
Paley  that  “  substantial  truth  is  that  which,  in  every 
historical  inquiry,  ought  to  be  the  first  thing  sought 
after  and  ascertained.” 

\ 

The  portion  of  this  work  which  has  lately  appeared 
in  the  form  of  Articles  in  Theological  Reviews,  has  been 
much  revised  and,  it  is  hoped,  rendered  more  worthy 
to  be  submitted  to  the  public.  Especially  is  this  true 
of  the  Essay  on  the  Genuineness  of  the  Fourth  Gospel , 
which  has  undergone  not  only  a  careful  revision,  but  al¬ 
so  a  material  amplification,  since  its  first  publication  in 
the  Bibliotheca  Sacra.  And  in  this  place  I  gladly  ex¬ 
press  my  acknowledgments  to  an  accurate  scholar,  Mr. 
Ezra  Abbott,  of  Harvard  College  Library,  for  a  num¬ 
ber  of  important  suggestions,  as  well  as  corrections, 
which  he  has  kindly  communicated  to  me,  and  of 
which  I  have  availed  myself  in  the  present  edition  of 
that  Essay. 

In  the  preparation  of  these  dissertations,  the  author 
has  chief! v  made  use  of  German  writers,  because  in 
Germany  these  subjects  have  been  canvassed  of  late 
with  more  earnestness  and  a  greater  outlay  of  learning 
than  elsewhere.  Germany  has  been  the  theatre  not 


PREFACE. 


V 


only  of  the  most  formidable  assault  upon  the  claims 
of  Revelation,  but  also  of  the  most  effectual  vindica¬ 
tion  of  those  claims.  But  I  have  diligently  resorted 
to  the  original  authorities,  and  have  withheld  my 
sanction  from  statements  which  did  not  appear  to  be 
sustained  by  their  testimony.  Although  many  of  the 
special  topics  which  are  handled  in  the  following  pages, 
have  only  recently  been  brought  forward,  I  have  still 
found  frequent  occasion  to  consult  Professor  Norton’s 
Genuineness  of  the  Gospels ,  a  work  which  combines 
thorough  learning  with  signal  impartiality.  I  may 
be  permitted  to  add  that  no  attempt  has  been  made  to 
provide  the  reader  with  a  bibliography  upon  the  topics 
embraced  in  the  present  work.  It  would  have  been 
easy  to  multiply  references  to  books,  but  it  has  been 
thought  best  to  mention  only  such  as  are  most  impor¬ 
tant  to  the  student. 

The  leading  feature  of  the  present  volume  is  the 
consideration  given  to  the  system  of  the  Tubingen 
school  of  historical  critics,  and  especially  to  the  tenets 
of  the  late  Dr.  Baur,  incomparably  the  ablest,  as  he 
is  the  most  conspicuous,  representative  of  this  school. 
Although  the  Tubingen  criticism  is  to  be  considered 
the  ripe  form  of  the  one  type  of  Unbelief  peculiar  to 

i 

our  age,  as  Deism  was  characteristic  of  the  last  century, 
and  although  this  movement,  from  the  learning  and  in- 


VI 


PREFACE. 


genuity  of  its  promoters,  is  more  entitled  to  notice  than 
any  other  leading  form  of  skepticism  which  has  ever  ap¬ 
peared  in  the  Church,  I  am  not  aware  that  any  full  ex¬ 
amination  of  it  lias  been  attempted  before  in  English, 
unless  the  work  of  Mr.  Mackay,  a  zealous  partisan  of 
the  school,  is  to  be  counted  an  exception.1  It  will  be 
observed  that  comparatively  little  space  is  devoted  to 
the  book  of  M.  Renan.  This  is  due  partly  to  the  fact 
that  much  that  might  properly  be  said  respecting  his 
work,  is  anticipated  in  the  previous  Essays,  and  partly 
to  the  conviction  that  its  claim  to  scientific  attention  is 
small,  compared  with  that  presented  in  the  productions 
of  Baur  and  Strauss.  The  same  remark  is  applicable  to 
the  Essay  on  the  opinions  of  Theodore  Parker. 

These  Essays  are  mainly  devoted  to  the  vindication 
of  the  genuineness  and  credibility  of  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  Narratives.  But  in  the  final  Essay,  I  have  ex¬ 
amined  the  Pantheistic  groundwork  on  which  most  of 
the  fabrics  of  skeptical  criticism  are  reared.  If-  Pan¬ 
theism  is  here  met  by  other  arguments  than  those  fur¬ 
nished  in  the  Hamiltonian  “  philosophy  of  nescience/’ 
it  is  because  this  philosophy  did  not  appear  to  be 
requisite,  and  for  the  still  better  reason  that  I  am  not 
persuaded  of  its  truth.  It  would  seem  that  the 

1  The  Tubingen  School  and  its  Antecedents ,  by  R.  W.  Mackay. 
London,  1803. 


PREFACE. 


Vll 


human  mind  can  know, in  a  proper  sense  of  the  term- — 
though  it  be  inadequately — the  Being  above  it,  whom 
it  yet  resembles  in  spiritual  constitution ;  that  it  can 
exclude  its  own  limitations  without  thereby  turning 
its  knowledge  of  the  object  into  a  mere  negation.  But 
whatever  may  be  the  reader’s  opinion  upon  this  ques¬ 
tion,  the  considerations  which  are  here  advanced  in 
refutation  of  Pantheism  remain  valid,  and  are  suffi 
cient,  it  is  believed,  for  their  end. 

On  one  point  it  may  be  well  to  guard  against  mis¬ 
construction.  Prom  the  prominence  given  to  the 
subject  of  miracles,  it  might  be  supposed  by  a  cursory 
reader,  that  these  are  considered  the  leading  proof  of 
Revelation.  That  the  fact  is  quite  otherwise,  a  more 
attentive  perusal  of  this  volume  would  immediately 
show.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  claimed  that  faith  in  the 
primal  verities  of  religion  has  an  independent  root 
of  its  own.  Such  is  the  ancient  and  accepted  teaching 
of  Christian  theology ;  the  view  not  only  of  the  Reform¬ 
ers,  but  also  of  all  the  mediaeval  writers,  including 
even  the  free-thinking  Abelard.  In  keeping  with  this 
doctrine  respecting  the  origin  of  faith  in  general,  it  is 
further  held  that  the  principal,  most  convincing  source 
of  faith  in  the  divine  origin  of  Christianity  is  the  im¬ 
pression  directly  made  on  the  spirit  by  the  teaching, 
the  life,  and  the  death  of  its  founder,  and  by  the 


Vlll 


PREFACE. 


adapted  ness  of  the  Christian  system  to  the  practical 
necessities  of  the  soul.  But  while  all  this  is  true,  the 
investigation  of  the  historical  origin  of  Christianity  is 
by  no  means  superfluous.  It  must  be  remembered 
that  the  number  of  minds  whose  immediate  discern¬ 
ment  of  the  excellence  of  the  Gospel  delivers  them 
from  all  doubt,  and  enables  them  to  dispense  with 
other  proof  of  its  divine  origin,  is  comparatively  small. 
The  greater  number  of  the  cultivated  class  need  to  be 
fortified  by  evidence  of  a  different  nature ;  they  need 
at  least  that  obstacles  should  be  removed  out  of  the 
way,  and  that  the  historical  conscience,  if  the  phrase 
may  be  allowed,  should  be  freed  from  uncomfortable 
misgivings.  And  it  surely  behooves  the  preacher  of 
Christianity  to  address  himself  to  the  consideration  of 
living  questions,  and  not  be  content  with  answering 
objections  which  are  no  longer  rife  in  the  minds  of 
thinking  men.  The  older  Apologies, 'like  the  ordnance 
of  a  former  day,  contain  most  valuable  materials,  but 
they  are  no  longer  serviceable  until  they  are  refitted 
in  accordance  with  an  altered  state  of  things. 

Yet  the  disappearance  of  one  after  another  of  the 
previous  types  of  unbelief,  while  the  Christian  faith 
still  remains  a  living  power,  may  teach  a  lesson  of 
modesty.  It  is  too  much  the  habit  of  a  class  of  writers 
to  speak  of  Christianity  as  an  antiquated  system,  and 


PREFACE. 


IX 


of  faith  in  Revelation  as  something  left  behind  by 
“  the  spirit  of  the  age/’  “  modern  thought,”  “  the  con¬ 
sciousness  of  the  nineteenth  century.”  There  is  a 
cant  on  the  side  of  unbelief,  as  well  as  among  some  of 
its  opponents.  It  is  well  to  bear  in  mind  that  these 
boastful  phrases,  or  others  analogous,  were  in  vogue  in 
the  last  century  among  those  whom  the  later  infidelity 
of  the  present  day  is  forward  to  charge  with  shallow¬ 
ness. 

While  these  sheets  are  passing  through  the  press, 
the  information  reaches  me  of  the  sudden  death  of  my 
revered  friend  and  former  instructor,  President  Way- 
land.  It  affords  me  gratification,  which  I  shall,  per¬ 
haps,  be  pardoned  for  expressing,  that  he  lived  to  read 
most  of  these  Essays,  and  volunteered  to  convey  to 
me  in  warm  terms  the  too  generous  appreciation  with 
which  he  regarded  them.  If  any  of  these  grave  topics 
are  found  to  be  superficially  handled,  or  if,  in  any  re¬ 
spect,  there  is  a  want  of  fairness  in  the  treatment  of 
adversaries,  these  faults  must  be  set  down  to  a  depar¬ 
ture  from  his  example  and  from  the  enlightened  spirit 
of  his  teachings. 


New  Haven,  October  7,  1865. 


\ 

• 

• 

. 

V. 

\ 

\ 

i 

' 


' 


CONTENTS 


- + - 

I. 

THE  NATURE  OF  THE  CONFLICT  OF  CHRISTIAN  FAITH 

WITH  SKEPTICISM  AND  UNBELIEF  .  .  1 

II. 

THE  GENUINENESS  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL  .  .  33 

III. 

RECENT  DISCUSSIONS  UPON  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FIRST 

THREE  GOSPELS  .  „  .153 

IV. 

BAUR  ON  PARTIES  IN  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH  AND  THE 

CHARACTER  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  ACTS  .  .  205 

y. 

BAUR  ON  EBIONITISM  AND  THE  ORIGIN  OF  CATHOLIC 

CHRISTIANITY . 283 

VI. 

THE  MYTHICAL  THEORY  OF  STRAUSS  .  .  .  339 

VII. 


STRAUSS’S  RESTATEMENT  OF  HIS  THEORY 


421 


Xll 


CONTENTS. 


Y  III. 

TEE  LEGENDARY  THEORY  OF  RENAN  .  .  .  433 

IX  . 

THE  CRITICAL  AND  THEOLOGICAL  OPINIONS  OF  THEO¬ 
DORE  PARKER  .  .  .  .  .449 

X. 

AN  EXAMINATION  OF  BAUR  AND  STRAUSS  ON  THE  CON- 

VERSION  OF  ST.  PAUL  .  .  .  459 

XI. 

THE  NATURE  AND  FUNCTION  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  MIRACLES  471 

XII. 

THE  TESTIMONY  OF  JESUS  CONCERNING  HIMSELF  .  .  515 

XIII. 

THE  PERSONALITY  OF  GOD :  IN  REPLY  TO  THE  POSITIV¬ 


IST  AND  THE  PANTHEIST 


539 


V 


ESSAY  I. 

THE  NATURE  OF  TIIE  CONFLICT  OF  CHRISTIAN  FAITH 
WITH  SKEPTICISM  AND  UNBELIEF. 

We  purpose,  in  several  Essays,  to  examine  the 
foundations  of  the  Christian  faith,  with  particular 
reference  to  some  of  the  leading  theories  of  unbelief 
which  are  in  vogue  at  the  present  day.  It  will  aid 
us  in  performing  the  work  we  have  taken  in  hand,  if, 
at  the  outset,  we  present  a  statement  of  what  we 
conceive  to  be  the  real  question  or  questions,  with 
which  the  controversy  of  Revealed  Religion  with 
Skepticism,  in  our  day,  is  chiefly  concerned.  This 
discrimination  seems  important  on  account  of  the 
multiplicity  of  controverted  points  relating  to  the 
subject,  which  are  brought  into  popular  discussion. 
Physical  science,  historical  study,  metaphysical  specu¬ 
lation,  has  each  its  own  inquiries  to  raise  and  doubts 
to  suggest,  and  the  effect  of  the  simultaneous  agita¬ 
tion  of  so  many  different  topics,,  none  of  them  un¬ 
important  to  a  Christian  believer,  is,  doubtless,  to 
breed  confusion.  We  shall  do  a  service,  therefore, 
as  we  hope,  to  some  of  our  readers,  if  we  stop  amid 
the  “  confused  noise  ”  of  the  battle,  survey  the  field 

where  so  many  are  running  to  and  fro,  and  direct  at- 

1 


2  NATURE  OF  THE  CONFLICT  WITH  UNBELIEF. 

tention  to  the  really  essential  points  which  are  threat¬ 
ened,  though  not,  as  we  trust,  imperiled  by  the  assault. 

We  shall  not  delay  long  for  the  purpose  of  char¬ 
acterizing  the  prevailing  tone  of  the  existing  skep¬ 
ticism  and  unbelief,  as  contrasted  with  similar  phe¬ 
nomena  at  other  periods  in  the  past.  Yet  not  to 
leave  this  interesting  topic  altogether  untouched,  we 
extract  a  passage  from  a  late  volume  of  Bampton 
Lectures,  in  which  the  peculiarity  of  the  present  de¬ 
velopment  of  skepticism  is  correctly  described.  “The 
unbelief  of  the  present  day,”  writes  the  author,  {C  dif¬ 
fers  from  that  of  the  last  century  in  tone  and  char¬ 
acter  ;  and  in  many  respects  shares  the  traits  already 
noticed  in  the  modern  intellectualism  of  Germany,  and 
the  eclecticism  of  Trance.  It  is  not  disgraced  by  rib¬ 
aldry  ;  hardly  at  all  by  political  agitation  against  the 
religion  which  it  disbelieves :  it  is  marked  by  a  show 
of  fairness,  and  professes  a  wish  not  to  ignore  facts 
nor  to  leave  them  unexplained.  Conceding  the  exist¬ 
ence  of  spiritual  and  religious  elements  in  human 
nature,  it  admits  that  their  subjective  existence  as 
facts  of  consciousness,  no  less  than  their  objective 
expression  in  the  history  of  religion,  demand  explana¬ 
tion,  and  cannot  be  hastily  set  aside,  as  was  thought 
in  the  last  century  in  Trance,  by  the  vulgar  theory 
that  the  one  is  factitious,  and  the  other  the  result  of 
priestly  contrivance.  The  writers  are  men  whose 
characters  and  lives  forbid  the  idea  that  their  unbelief 
is  intended  as  an  excuse  for  licentiousness.  Denying 


TONE  OF  SKEPTICAL  WRITERS. 


3 


revealed  religion,  they  cling  the  more  tenaciously  to 
the  moral  instincts :  their  tone  is  one  of  earnestness  : 
their  inquiries  are  marked  by  a  profound  conviction 
of  the  possibility  of  finding  truth :  not  content  with 
destroying,  their  aim  is  to  reconstruct.  Their  opin¬ 
ions  are  variously  manifested.  Some  of  them  appear 
in  treatises  of  philosophy  :  others  insinuate  themselves 
indirectly  in  literature  :  some  of  them  relate  to  Chris¬ 
tian  doctrines;  others  to  the  criticism  of  Christian 
documents :  but  in  all  cases  their  authors  either  leave 
a  residuum  which  they  profess  will  satisfy  the  long¬ 
ings  of  human  nature,  or  confess  with  deep  pain  that 
them  conclusions  are  in  direct  conflict  with  human 
aspirations ;  and,  instead  of  reveling  in  the  ruin  which 
they  have  made,  deplore  with  a  tone  of  sadness  the 
impossibility  of  solving  the  great  enigma.  It  is  clear 
that  writers  like  these  offer  a  wholly  different  appear¬ 
ance  from  those  of  the  last  century.  The  deeper  ap¬ 
preciation  manifested  by  them  of  the  systems  which 
they  disbelieve,  and  the  more  delicate  learning  of 
which  they  are  able  to  avail  themselves,  constitute  fea¬ 
tures  formerly  lacking  in  the  works  of  even  the  most 
serious-minded  deists,1  and  require  a  difference  in  the 
spirit,  if  not  the  mode,  in  which  Christians  must  seek 
to  refute  them.”  2  A  general  description  like  the 
foregoing  is,  of  course,  liable  to  much  exception  and 
qualification  when  it  is  applied  to  particular  individ- 

1  Such  as  Herbert  and  Morgan. 

2  Farrar’s  Bampton  Lectures,  Am.  Ed.,  p.  307. 


4  NATURE  OF  THE  CONFLICT  WITH  UNBELIEF. 

uals.  Yet  tlie  drift  of  it  will  be  recognized  as  correct 
by  those  who  regard  with  a  penetrative  eye  the  skep¬ 
tical  literature  of  the  day.  In  contrast  with  the  past, 
unbelief  is  oftener  now  an  infection  than  a  willful 
attack.  There  are  more  at  present  who  can  be  truly 
said  to  be  afflicted  with  doubt.  In  the  refinement  and 
learning  exhibited  by  the  antagonists  of  Revelation, 
a  decided  superiority  belongs  to  the  present.  Just 
place  Paine’s  Age  of  Reason  by  the  side  of  Renan’s 
newly  published  Life  of  Christ!  The  difference  of 
the  old  infidelity  from  the  new,  is  instantly  felt 
by  the  dullest  observer.  The  spirit  of  the  one  is 
coarse  and  bitterly  hostile  to  Christianity ;  the  depend¬ 
ence  is  more  on  railing  than  reasoning ;  and  the 
warfare  is  waged  without  the  aid  of  historical  knowl¬ 
edge.  The  Deistical  writers  were,  to  be  sure,  fre¬ 
quently  above  Paine  in  the  character  of  the  weapons 
they  employed,  and  in  the  temper  with  which  they 
wielded  them ;  and  yet  the  name  of  Paine  fairly  sug¬ 
gests  the  general  character  of  the  movement,  at  least 
in  its  later  stages.  The  work  of  Renan  is  the  produc¬ 
tion  of  a  scholar  possessed  of  abundant  philological 
and  historical  learning ;  it  is  dedicated  to  a  departed 
sister  who  aided  in  its  composition ;  it  abounds  in 
expressions  of  sentiment ;  it  knows  how  to  value 
much  that  is  sacred  to  the  Christian  believer;  it  is 
founded  upon  laborious  studies  and  upon  travels  in 
the  land  of  the  Bible.  Skepticism  has  without  doubt 
improved  immensely  in  its  general  tone.  And  yet  the 


SUBTLE  CHARACTER  OF  MODERN  SKEPTICISM.  5 


sketch  which  we  have  quoted  above,  in  order  to  be 
full,  would  require  to  be  qualified  by  a  distinct  men¬ 
tion  of  the  fact  that  there  is  witnessed  on  the  side  of 
skeptical  writers  even  of  the  more  refined  school,  in 
our  own  times,  the  occasional  development  of  an  ani¬ 
mosity  toward  the  Christian  faith,  that  ill  accords 
with  their  habitual  tone,  and  seems  to  imply  that  after 
all  there  lies  deep  down  in  the  heart  an  unwholesome 
fountain  of  bitter  feeling  with  reference  to  the  doc¬ 
trines  and  restraints  of  religion. 

For  the  reason  that  the  peculiar  traits  of  the  mod¬ 
ern  skepticism,  and  the  peculiar  character  of  the  class 
who  are  affected  by  it,  are  not  clearly  discerned,  the 
comparative  strength  of  the  infidel  party  in  our  times 
is  underrated  by  not  a  few  even  of  Christian  teachers. 
When  >  the  present  is  compared  with  the  past,  they 
begin  at  once  to  take  a  census  of  the  known  or 
avowed  opposers  of  Christianity,  and  to  put  the  result 
of  this  count  of  heads  by  the  side  of  a  similar  reckon¬ 
ing  made  for  an  earlier  epoch.  They  are  not  awake 
to  the  subtler  form  which  skepticism  has  assumed. 
They  fail  to  see  that,  though  it  be  often  less  tangible 
and  pugnacious,  it  is  more  diffused  like  an  atmosphere. 
They  are  not  aware  how  widely  the  seeds  of  unbelief 
are  scattered  through  books  and  journals  which  find  a 
hospitable  reception  even  in  Christian  families.  And 
they  do  not  appreciate  the  significance  of  the  fact  that 
so  large  a  number  of  the  leaders  of  opinion  on  mat¬ 
ters  outside  of  the  sphere  of  religion,  are  adherents, 


6  NATURE  OF  THE  CONFLICT  WITH  UNBELIEF. 

more  or  less  outspoken,  of  the  skeptical  school. 
Infidelity  appears  in  better  dress  and  in  better  com¬ 
pany  than  of  old  ;  it  takes  on  the  function  of  the 
educator  and  social  reformer;  it  prefers  a  compromise 
with  Christianity  to  a  noisy  crusade  against  it;  but 
the  half-friendly  attitude  it  assumes  may  render  the 
task  of  exposing  and  withstanding  it  all  the  more 
difficult.  This  ambiguous,  fluctuating  tone  of  the 
skepticism  of  our  day,  renders  the  analysis  of  its  fun¬ 
damental  position  the  more  incumbent ;  and  this  we 
attempt  in  the  present  Essay. 

We  begin  with  remarking  that  the  principal  ques¬ 
tion  at  issue  is  not  the  Inspiration  of  the  Scriptures. 
There  is  one  point  of  view,  as  we  shall  shortly  explain, 
from  which  the  importance  of  this  question  is  not  ex¬ 
aggerated.  But  the  mere  question  of  the  relation  of 
human  agency  to  divine  agency  in  the  production  of 
the  Scriptures  is,  in  itself  considered,  of  not  so  great 
moment.  The  fact  of  Inspiration  is  chiefly  important 
as  containing  a  guaranty  for  the  authority  of  the 
Bible.  If  the  Bible  were  exclusively  the  work  of  men, 
and  yet  came  to  us  attended  with  a  divine  attestation 
to  the  truth  of  its  contents,  the  main  end  for  which 
Inspiration  is  desired  and  thought  necessary,  would  be 
attained.  The  authority  of  the  Scriptures  as  a  Rule 
of  Eaith  and  Practice  is  the  doctrine  of  prime  value ; 
and  Inspiration  is  required  as  a  shield  against  the  lia¬ 
bilities  to  hurtful  error,  which  pertain  to  every  exer¬ 
tion  of  the  human  mind  without  the  aid  of  a  higher 


THE  QUESTION  OF  INSPIRATION. 


7 


light.  Something  is  gained,  in  our  view,  in  the  dis¬ 
cussion  of  these  topics,  when  we  steadily  keep  in  mind 
the  great  object  to  be  secured  (if  it  can  be  consist¬ 
ently  with  truth),  which  is  none  other  than  the  Protest¬ 
ant  principle  of  the  Authority  of  the  Bible  as  a  guide 
to  the  knowledge  of  duty  and  salvation.  Whether 
he  proceed  from  a  scientific  or  a  practical  motive,  the 
inquirer  for  religious  truth  has  first  to  settle  the 
question,  where  shall  this  truth  be  found.  This  is 
obviously  the  first  step.  Until  this  point  is  deter¬ 
mined,  there  is  no  criterion  of  truth,  no  “judge  to  end 
the  strife  ”  of  diverse  opinions.  The  Roman  Catholic 
considers  the  Church,  through  the  voice  of  its  clergy 
and  their  head,  the  infallible  expounder  of  truth.  In 
every  doubt,  he  has  an  arbiter  at  his  side  whose  ver¬ 
dict,  being  the  direct  result  of  divine  illumination, 
is  held  to  be  conclusive.  The  Protestant  agrees  with 
the  Roman  Catholic  in  holding  to  an  objective  stand¬ 
ard,  but  the  standard  with  him  is  the  Bible,  which  he 
feels  authorized  to  interpret  for  himself.  Denying 
that  the  Church  is  either  the  unerring  interpreter  of 
Scripture,  or  the  infallible  guardian  of  oral  teaching  of 
Christ  and  the  Apostles,  which  tradition  has  handed 
down,  he  falls  back  upon  the  Bible  itself.  The  Bible 
alone  is  his  Rule  of  Paith.  This  we  take  to  be  the 
fundamental  position  of  Protestantism  on  the  question 
which,  as  we  have  said,  stands  at  the  threshold  of  all 
profitable  religious  inquiry.  On  the  contrary,  the 
Rationalist  differs  from  both  the  Roman  Catholic  and 


8  NATURE  OF  THE  CONFLICT  WITH  UNBELIEF. 

Protestant,  first  in  setting  aside  every  objective  Au 
tliority,  every  Authority  exterior  to  the  mind  itself,  in 
matters  of  religion,  and  then  in  positively  maintaining 
the  sufficiency  of  Reason.  Nothing  is  allowed  to 
stand  which  cannot  justify  itself  at  this  tribunal  of 
his  own  understanding.  There  is  no  divine  testimony 
which  is  separate  from  the  thoughts  and  deductions 
of  the  human  mind,  and  entitled  to  regulate  belief. 
We  may  stop  to  observe  that  an  ingenious  German 
writer  1  has  not  improperly  classified  the  Mystic  with 
the  Rationalist,  so  far  as  the  former  takes  his  own 
feeling  for  a  source  and  criterion  of  truth,  superior 
to  any  external  Rule.  The  Mystic  and  the  Ration¬ 
alist  meet  on  the  common  ground  of  a  renunciation 
of  objective  Authority,  the  one  relying  ultimately 
upon  subjective  reason,  the  other  upon  subjective 
feeling,  for  all  his  convictions  of  religious  truth.  And 
hence  the  Mystic  is  found  to  pass  over,  not  unfre- 
quently,  by  a  natural  and  easy  transition,  to  the 
position  of  the  Rationalist,  the  difference  between 
them  often  depending  for  the  most  part  on  a  diversity 
of  temperament  and  education.  Now  the  Protestant 
principle  which  is  thus  distinguished  from  that  of  the 
Romanist  and  of  the  Rationalist,  is  of  vital  moment; 
and  it  stands  in  close  connection  with  the  other  doc¬ 
trine  of  Biblical  Inspiration.  Give  up  the  principle 
of  the  Normative  Authority  of  the  Bible,  and  we  are 
driven  upon  the  alternative  of  either  abjectly  surren- 

1  Kliefoth,  Einleitung  zur  DogmengeschicJite. 


THE  QUESTION  OF  INSPIRATION. 


9 


dering  ourselves  to  the  Church,  or  of  being  set  adrift, 
with  the  Rationalist,  upon  a  sea  of  conjectures  and  un¬ 
certified  reasonings  of  men.  When,  for  example,  I 
open  an  Epistle  of  St.  Paul,  and  find  there  a  passage 
upon  the  design  and  effect  of  the  Saviour’s  death,  and 
when  I  have  ascertained  the  sense  of  the  passage  by  a 
fair  exegesis,  may  I  then  be  sure  of  its  truth?  Or 
when  I  meet  on  the  page  of  Scripture  with  practical 
injunctions  pertaining  to  the  duties  of  life,  may  I 
depend  upon  them  as  strictly  conformed  to  the  truth, 
and  shape  my  conduct  in  accordance  with  them  ? 
Here  is  the  practical  question  concerning  the  Bible  ; 
and  the  fact  of  Inspiration,  or  of  supernatural  aid 
enjoyed  by  the  writers,  owes  its  value  chiefly  to  the 
assurance  it  may  afford  upon  this  primary  question. 
It  is  interesting  to  observe  that  the  most  discerning 
of  those  theologians  at  the  present  day  who  are  dis¬ 
satisfied  with  the  old  formulas  concerning  Inspiration, 
feel  the  necessity  of  still  abiding  by  the  cardinal 
Protestant  principle  of  the  Normative  Authority  of 
the  Scriptures.  The  Bible  is  still  held  to  be  the  safe 
and  sufficient  Rule  of  Eaith,  upon  which  the  Christian 
may  cast  himself  without  misgiving.  Thus  Dr. 
Arnold,  holding  that  the  apostles  in  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  predict  the  speedy  Advent  of  Christ  to  judg¬ 
ment,  is,  nevertheless,  careful  to  remark,  that  by 
the  recorded  words  of  Christ  which  declare  this  point 
not  to  be  a  subject  of  Revelation,  and  by  the  circum¬ 
stance  that  those  injunctions  of  St.  Paul  which  were 


10  NATURE  OF  THE  CONFLICT  WITH  UNBELIEF. 

founded  in  his  own  mind  on  this  expectation,  are 
expressly  given  as  not  having  divine  authority,  but  as 
counsel,  the  error  of  the  apostles  is  prevented  from 
having  the  effect  to  weaken  in  our  estimation  their 
general  authority.  That  is  to  say,  this  anticipation 
was  an  error,  but  an  error  into  which  they  do 
not  profess  that  Inspiration  led  them,  and  from  the 
misleading  influence  of  which  all  are  saved  who 
attend  to  the  words  of  Christ  in  the  passage  above 
referred  to.  Another  witness  to  the  importance  of 
upholding  the  Protestant  view  upon  this  subject  is 
the  learned  and  brilliant  theologian  of  Heidelberg, 
Dr.  Rothe.  In  the  essays 1  which  he  put  forth  a  few 
years  ago,  and  which  he  has  since  collected  in  a  little 
volume,  the  old  theological  definitions  in  regard  to 
Inspiration  are  frankly  discarded  for  the  reason  that,  in 
the  opinion  of  the  author,  they  were  constructed  from 
a  mistaken  conception  of  the  nature  and  method  of 
Divine  Revelation.  Not  only  does  he  extend  the  in¬ 
fluence  of  the  human  element,  or  factor,  in  the  com¬ 
position  of  the  Scriptures  so  far  as  to  admit  of  the  in¬ 
troduction  of  errors  in  physical  science  and  in  history, 
but  he  does  not  hesitate  to  allow  that  the  Apostles  fell 
into  mistakes  in  reasoning  and  in  their  method  of  in¬ 
terpreting  the  Old  Testament,  and  to  distinguish  be¬ 
tween  the  doctrines  they  set  forth,  and  the  arguments 

:  First  published  in  the  Studien  u.  Ivritiken.  •They  are  collected 
hy  the  Author  under  the  title,  Zur  Dogmatifc. 


THE  QUESTION  OF  INSPIRATION. 


11 


to  which  they  resort  in  confuting  adversaries,  and 
which  are  more  or  less  the  result  of  their  own  fallible 
reflection.  In  these  and  other  particulars,  Rothe 
departs  widely  from  the  accepted  formulas  of  doctrine. 
And  yet  he  maintains,  and  feels  it  necessary  to 
maintain,  the  Normative  Authority  of  the  Scriptures. 
This  he  endeavors  to  save  by  his  view  that  the  Bible 
is  not  only  a  self-explaining,  but,  to  some  extent,  also 
a  self-correcting,  book.  If  we  are  able  to  discern  the 
imperfection  of  an  ethical  sentence,  or  ethical  judg¬ 
ment,  in  one  portion  of  the  Scriptures — for  example  in 
the  Psalms — we  do  this  only  by  means  of  a  more 
advanced  ethical  standard  which  the  Gospels,  or  the 
Scriptures  as  a  whole  have  given  us,  so  that  the  Rule 
of  Faith — the  source  of  knowledge — still  remains  an 
objective  one.  We  are  still  moving  in  the  sphere  of 
the  Bible,  seeing  in  the  Bible’s  own  teaching,  judging 
by  the  Bible’s  own  standard.  A  view  not  dissimilar 
from  that  of  Rothe  is  suggested  in  various  passages 
of  the  celebrated  Letters  of  Coleridge  on  the  subject 
of  Inspiration.  “  Is  it  not  a  fact,”  he  asks,  “that 
the  books  of  the  New  Testament  were  tried  by  their 
consonance  with  the  rule,  and  according  to  the 
analogy,  of  faith  ?  Does  not  the  universally  admitted 
canon — that  each  part  of  the  Scripture  must  be  in¬ 
terpreted  by  the  spirit  of  the  whole— lead  to  the 
same  practical  conclusion  as  that  for  which  I  am  now 
contending ;  namely,  that  it  is  the  spirit  of  the  Bible, 
and  not  the  detached  words  and  sentences,  that  is  in- 


12  NATURE  OF  THE  CONFLICT  WITH  UNBELIEF. 

fallible  and  absolute  ?  ” 1  It  is  foreign  to  our  pres- 

\ 

ent  purpose  to  criticise  these  views  of  Rothe,  which 
have  evidently  made  a  strong  impression  in  Ger¬ 
many,  or  the  somewhat  similar,  though  less  guarded, 
declarations  of  Coleridge.  We  advert  to  them  both, 
simply  to  illustrate  wherein  lies  the  importance  of 
the  doctrine  of  Inspiration,  and  how  essential  it  is, 
even  in  the  opinion  of  profound  theologians  who  are 
counted  among  the  most  liberal  of  the  adherents 
of  the  Evangelical  system,  to  uphold  the  Protestant 
doctrine  of  an  objective  and  on  the  ichole  unerring 
standard  of  religious  truth  and  duty. 

Yet  the  subject  of  the  Normative  Authority  of 
Scripture  is  of  subordinate  interest  when  compared 
with  the  debate  that  has  arisen  upon  the  historical 
reality  of  the  Scriptural  miracles.  The  attention  of 
thoughtful  men,  everywhere,  is  concentrated  upon 
the  question  of  the  verity  of  those  parts  of  Scriptural 
history  which  describe  miraculous  events.  If  this 
be  established,  the  speculative  objections  to  the 
doctrinal  system  of  Christianity  at  once  fall  to  the 
ground.  All  opposition  of  this  sort  is  then  silenced, 
if  not  satisfied.  On  the  other  hand,  if  the  miracles 
are  disproved,  Christianity  is  stripped  of  its  essential 
peculiarity.  The  central  fact  of  a  Supernatural 
Interposition  having  for  its  end  the  restoration  of 

1  Coleridge,  Confessions  of  an  Inquiring  Spirit ,  in  Lis  Works, 
Am.  Ed.  vol.  v.  p.  612. 


THE  QUESTION  OF  THE  REALITY  OF  MIRACLES.  13 

man  to  communion  with  God,  is  lost.  The  Chris¬ 
tian  system  of  doctrine  is  reduced  to  a  mere  product 
of  the  human  mind,  having  no  divine  sanction,  and 
mixed,  we  know  not  how  largely,  with  error.  That 
this  question  of  the  historical  reality  of  the  Scriptural 
miracles  involves  the  whole  claim  of  Christianity  to 
be  a  Revelation,  is  plain,  for  Revelation  and  Miracle 
are  inseparable  from  each  other.  In  fact,  the  ablest 
skeptical  writers  of  the  present  day  have  set  them¬ 
selves  to  the  work  of  undermining  the  evidence  for 
the  Scriptural  miracles.  To  explain  the  origin  of 
Christianity,  and  the  origin  also  of  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  narratives  of  supernatural  events,  on  some 
hypothesis  that  shall  dispense  with  the  need  of 
putting  faith  in  the  latter,  is  the  problem  which  they 
are  struggling  to  solve.  The  Life  of  Christ  by 
Strauss,  in  both  the  earlier  and  the  recent  form,  is 
simply  an  elaborate  attempt  to  set  aside  miracles, 
by  propounding  some  hypothesis  more  plausible 
than  the  old  exploded  theory  of  a  wilful  deception 
on  the  part  of  the  early  disciples.  The  Life  of 
Christ  by  Renan  is  likewise  little  more  than  an  effort 
to  account  for  Christ  and  Christianity  and  the  Chris¬ 
tian  Scriptures,  without  giving  credence  to  miraculous 
events.  The  recent  criticism  of  the  New  Testament 
canon,  embracing  the  attempt  to  impeach  the  gen¬ 
uineness  of  various  books,  is  only  a  part  of  the  great 
discussion  of  the  historical  truth  of  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  miracles  ;  for  it  is  difficult  to  attack  the  credi- 


14  NATURE  OF  THE  CONFLICT  WITH  UNBELIEF. 

bility  of  the  gospel  histories  without  first  disproving 
their  genuineness.  This  main  issue  is  never  with¬ 
drawn  from  the  mind  of  writer  or  reader.  The 
resources  of  learning  and  skill  which  are  expended 
by  the  Tubingen  school  of  critics  with  Baur  at  their 
head,  and  in  turn  by  their  antagonists,  in  reference 
to  the  authorship  and  date  of  the  Gospels  and  of 
other  portions  of  the  New  Testament,  are  only  a 
chapter  in  the  controversy  to  which  we  allude.  The 
spectacle  presented  is  that  of  a  conflict  for  the  pos¬ 
session  of  a  place  not  so  much  valued  for  itself,  as 
for  being  the  key  that  carries  with  it  another  posi¬ 
tion  on  which  all  thoughts  centre.  Thus  the  real 
issue  between  the  believer  and  the  unbeliever  has 
become  distinct  and  conspicuous.  Did  Christ  do 
the  works  which  none  other  men  could  do?  This 
is  the  vital  question — we  might  almost  say,  the 
only  question.  The  case  of  Christianity  rests  upon 
the  decision  of  it.  Its  claim  to  a  rank  essentially 
different  from  that  of  other  religions  and  philosophies, 
stands  or  falls  according  as  this  question  is  answered. 
Is  the  doctrine  of  God,  or  does  Christ  speak  of  him¬ 
self,  uttering  a  human  wisdom  which,  however  rare, 
is  only  human,  bearing  upon  it  no  loftier  sanction, 
and  even  mixed  with  an  amalgam  of  error  ? 

This  being  a  question  so  momentous,  we  have  a 
right  to  expect  of  every  one  who  enters  into  the  dis¬ 
cussion  of  the  character  of  the  Scriptures,  especially 
if  he  be  understood  to  represent  the  Christian  cause, 


THE  QUESTION  OE  THE  REALITY  OF  MIRACLES.  15 

that  lie  shall  declare  himself  in  regard  to  it  without 
ambiguity.  Whatever  view  he  may  take  upon  special 
questions,  upon  this  cardinal  proposition  of  super¬ 
naturalism  he  has  no  right  to  appear  to  halt  or  to 
oscillate  between  two  opinions.  The  volume  of  Essays 
and  Rcvieics  which  lately  kindled  so  great  an  excite¬ 
ment  in  the  English  Church,  appears  to  us  to  be  liable 
to  this  charge.  In  several  of  the  dissertations  that 
compose  it,  there  is  manifest  an  evasiveness  and 
indecision,  a  disposition  to  pare  down  the  supernatural 
in  the  Scriptures  to  a  minimum,  if  not  to  doubt  its 
existence  altogether.  An  explicit,  unshrinking  avowal 
of  a  belief  in  the  historical  reality  of  the  Christian 
miracles,  would  have  redeemed  that  book,  in  our  judg¬ 
ment,  from  its  gravest  fault.  We  remember  that  a 
critic  of  the  Essays ,  in  one  of  the  English  literary 
journals,  cited  from  the  book  one  skeptical  insinuation 
after  another,  appending  to  each  the  question:  “but 
what  of  the  Resurrection  ?  ”  This  or  that  stricture 
may  be  just,  or  may  not  be — such  was  the  purport  of 
criticism — but  what  of  the  Resurrection  of  Christ  from 
the  dead  ?  On  what  ground  do  these  authors  stand  ? 
Is  it  the  design  to  shake  the  faith  of  men  in  super¬ 
natural  Christianity  and  recommend  a  naturalistic 
theory  ?  If  not,  why  this  hesitation  to  commit  them¬ 
selves  to  a  bold  avowal  on  the  subject  of  miracles,  and 
to  let  their  readers  see  how  much  is  implied  in  the  fact 
of  the  Resurrection  of  Christ?  The  concession  that 
a  single  miracle  took  place  in  connection  with  Chris- 


16  NATURE  OE  THE  CONFLICT  WITH  UNBELIEF. 

tianity  imparts  to  this  religion  an  unspeakable  elevation 
and  awful  ness  in  the  view  of  every  considerate  mind. 
Although  in  these  remarks  we  have  chiefly  in  mind 
the  New  Testament,  yet  we  should  be  inclined  to 
bring  a  similar  accusation  against  Stanley,  for  the 
ambiguous  tone  of  his  recent  History  of  the  Jewish 
Church,  did  he  not  expressly  disclaim  the  ability  to 
sever,  in  his  own  mind,  in  many  cases,  the  natural  and 
the  supernatural.  We  are  continually  left  afloat  in 
regard  to  this  most  interesting  and  most  important 
question.  Now  an  event  appears  to  be  represented  as 
miraculous,  and  in  the  next  sentence  it  is  resolved  into 
a  merely  natural  occurrence.  Were  it  not  for  the 
distinct  avowal  of  the  author,  to  which  we  have  advert¬ 
ed,  his  work  would  be  justly  chargeable  with  being 
written  in  a  Jesuitical  tone — a  tone  least  of  all  corre¬ 
sponding  with  the  author’s  character.  Tor  ourselves 
we  must  acknowledge  our  preference  for  a  single  page 
of  severe  scientific  criticism,  over  a  library  of  volumes 
like  this  of  Hr.  Stanley,  where  so  little  is  decided  and 
settled.  What  men  crave  in  these  days,  is  satisfaction 
upon  the  difficult  questions  which  meet  them  in  the 
early  portions  of  the  Old  Testament,  and,  if  at  all  in 
earnest,  they  will  not  be  content  to  be  put  off  with 
pleasant  description.  In  striking  contrast  with  the 
censurable  uncertainty  of  the  Essays  and  Reviews 
upon  the  subject  of  miracles,  is  the  tone  of  Rothe  in 
the  little  work  to  which  we  have  already  alluded. 
Starting  with  the  avowed  design  to  oppose  the 


THE  PRINCIPAL  QUESTION  AN  HISTORICAL  ONE.  17 


views  more  commonly  taken  of  the  Scriptures,  he 
is  careful  at  the  outset  to  avow  his  uncloubting 
faith  in  miracles  and  in  the  supernatural  character 
of  Christianity.  He  desires  it  to  be  distinctly 
understood  that  on  this  subject  he  is  full  and  clear. 
On  this  platform  he  will  stand  in  the  prosecution  of 
the  further  inquiries  to  which  he  invites  attention. 
Such  a  course  alone  is  worthy  of  a  theologian  who  has 
a  nobler  aim  than  merely  to  instill  doubts  concerning 
the  justice  of  received  views. 

Thus,  the  principal  question  in  the  controversy 
with  unbelief  is  an  historical  one.  Hardly  a  worse 
mistake  can  be  committed  in  dealing  with  most 
skeptics  at  the  present  day,  than  to  begin  by  insisting 
upon  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible.  We  should  rather 
place  ourselves  back  in  the  position  which  the  apostles 
occupied  in  preaching  to  the  Gentiles,  before  the  New 
Testament  Scriptures  were  written.  We  should  make 
it  our  first  aim  to  substantiate  the  great  facts  which 
are  recorded  in  the  New  Testament,  and  which  formed 
the  pith  and  marrow  of  the  apostles’  testimony.  We 
must  meet  the  skeptic  on  the  ordinary  level  of  histori¬ 
cal  investigation,  and  bring  before  him  the  proof  that 
the  Gospel  miracles  were  actually  performed,  sub¬ 
stantially  as  these  histories  of  the  New  Testament 
narrate.  There  is  no  other  common  ground  on  which 
he  and  we  can  stand.  Unless  he  can  be  satisfied  of  ■ 
the  credibility  of  the  Gospels  in  these  main  particulars, 

it  is  useless  to  go  farther  and  attempt  to  convince  him 
2 


18  NATURE  OF  THE  CONFLICT  WITH  UNBELIEF. 

that  this  body  of  writings  is  the  product  of  Divine 
inspiration — much  less  that  they  contain  no  sort  of 
error.  The  first  and  the  great  proposition  to  be  estab¬ 
lished  is,  that  God  has  made  a  supernatural  revelation ; 
and  this  done,  other  points  of  truth  may  follow  in 
their  proper  place.  In  this  controversy,  it  behooves  us 
to  keep  in  mind  the  order  of  things  to  be  believed. 
First  comes  the  leading,  the  commanding  truth,  of  a 
miraculous  attestation  to  the  mission  of  Jesus.  Let 
this  once  become  a  firm  conviction,  and  the  next  step 
is  to  ascertain  his  teaching  and  the  contents  of  his 
religion.  Every  earnest  mind  will  be  ready  to  take 
this  step  ;  will  immediately  look  about  for  some 
authentic  source  of  knowledge  on  this  subject ;  and 
then  the  peculiar  character  and  claims  of  the  Bible  will 
be  made  a  theme  of  investigation. 

While  we  hold  that  the  direct  question  at  issue 
with  the  skeptic  and  unbeliever  is  an  historical  one,  we 
think  that  Apologists  fall  into  a  mischievous  error  in 
defining  the  nature  of  the  evidence  for  Christian  Reve¬ 
lation.  This  evidence,  it  is  frequently  said,  being 
historical,  is  of  a  moral  or  probable  kind,  as  distin¬ 
guished  from  demonstrative.  The  appreciation  of 
it,  therefore,  it  is  added,  depends  in  no  small  degree 
upon  the  spirit  of  the  individual  by  whom  it  is 
weighed.  So  far  we  fully  agree  with  the  ordinary 
Apologist,  and  could  say  with  him  that  the  force 
which  the  historical  proofs  will  actually  have  in  per¬ 
suading  the  mind,  differs  with  the  tempers  of  feel- 


THE  RATIONALISTIC  TEMPER. 


19 


ing  which  are  brought  to  the  consideration  of  them. 
Only  we  say,  it  is  a  fatal  error  to  confine  the  inward 
qualification  for  judging  of  this  evidence,  to  the 
virtues  of  candor,  simplicity,  and  honesty.  On  the 
contrary,  we  freely  concede  and  contend  that  these 
virtues  may  exist  up  to  the  ordinary  measure,  and 
even  beyond  it,  and  yet  this  evidence  fail  of  leading 
the  mind  to  conviction.  We  freely  grant  that  unbe¬ 
lievers  have  lived  in  the  past,  and  some  live  to-day, 
whose  ability  for  historical  investigation  is  of  an 
unusually  high  order.  In  the  treatment  of  secular 
history,  they  evince  no  want  of  candor  and  no  exces¬ 
sive  incredulity.  And  although  they  withhold  their 
belief  from  the  supernatural  facts  of  Christianity,  we 
cannot  charge  them  with  any  marked  disposition  to 
pervert,  conceal,  or  disparage  the  evidence  by  which 
these  facts  are  supported.  We  would  not  for  a 
moment  deny  that  great  names  are  on  the  roll  of 
infidelity ;  names  of  men  who,  to  say  the  least,  are 
not  peculiarly  liable  to  the  charge  of  being  uncandid 
and  prejudiced  in  their  investigation  of  any  important 
subject.  The  Christian  Apologist,  as  we  think,  is 
entitled  and  required  to  take  higher  ground,  and  to 
extend  this  qualification  for  appreciating  the  proofs 
of  revelation  beyond  the  common  virtues  of  fairness 
and  honesty.  We  are  called  upon  distinctly  to  re¬ 
cognize  the  truth,  that  in  the  consideration  of  this 
subject  we  find  ourselves  in  a  sphere  where  the  deep 
alienation  of  the  human 'heart  from  God  and  Divine 


20  NATURE  OF  TIIE  CONFLICT  WITH  UNBELIEF. 

things  exerts  a  powerful  influence  upon  the  judg¬ 
ment.1  When  we  are  called  to  determine  the  truth 
or  falsehood  of  any  historical  statement,  our  judgment 
will  be  affected  inevitably  by  the  view  we  take  of  the 
conditions  and  causes  at  work  in  connection  with  the 
event  which  is  alleged  to  have  occurred.  The  same 
law  is  applicable  to  the  Gospel  history.  Were  these 
events  ordinary,  or  unmiraculous  events,  the  evidence 
for  them  would  not  only  be  convincing,  but,  for  all 
thorough  students,  overwhelming.  But  another  ele¬ 
ment  may  come  in  to  arrest  the  judgment  and  defeat 
the  natural  effect  of  the  proof;  the  circumstance, 
namely,  that  the  events  are  thought  to  be  either  out 
of  the  range  of  possibility,  or  in  the  highest  degree 
unlikely  to  occur.  The  evidence  may  be  felt  to  be 
all  that  could  be  asked,  and  more  than  could  be  re¬ 
quired,  in  the  case  of  any  natural  event,  but  the 
event  being,  if  it  occurred,  a  miracle,  there  is  a  positive 
incredulity  beforehand,  which,  it  may  be,  no  amount 
of  historical  proof  can  overcome.  This  variable 
element ,  which  may  neutralize  the  strongest  array 
of  historical  evidence,  lies  in  the  general  habit  of 
feeling  with  reference  to  supernatural  things.  At 
the  bottom  of  unbelief  is  a  rationalistic  or  unreligious 
temper.  This  truth  is  admirably  set  forth  in  one 
of  the  sermons  of  Arnold.  “The  clearest  notion/’ 

1  It  may  be  well  to  compare  here  what  the  New  Testament 
itself  has  to  say  of  the  prerequisites  of  faith.  See  Matt.  xi.  25 ; 
1  Cor.  i.  19-27 ;  and  like  passages. 


THE  RATIONALISTIC  TEMPER. 


21 


he  says,  “  which  can  be  given  of  Rationalism  would, 
1  think,  be  this :  that  it  is  the  abuse  of  the  under¬ 
standing  in  subjects  where  the  divine  and  human, 
so  to  speak,  'are  intermingled.  Of  human  things 
the  understanding  can  judge,  of  divine  things  it 
cannot ;  and  thus,  where  the  two  are  mixed  together, 
its  inability  to  judge  of  the  one  part  makes  it  derange 
the  proportions  of  both,  and  the  judgment  of  the 
whole  is  vitiated.  For  example,  the  understanding 
examines  a  miraculous  history:  it  judges  truly  of 
what  I  may  call  the  human  part  of  the  case ;  that  is 
to  say,  of  the  rarity  of  miracles,  of  the  fallibility  of 
human  testimony,  of  the  proneness  of  most  minds 
to  exaggeration,  and  of  the  critical  arguments  affect¬ 
ing  the  genuineness  or  date  of  the  narrative  itself. 
But  it  forgets  the  divine  part,  namely,  the  power  and 
providence  of  God,  that  lie  is  really  ever  present 
amongst  us,  and  that  the  spiritual  world,  which 
exists  invisibly  all  around  us,  may  conceivably  and 
by  no  means  impossibly  exist,  at  some  times  and 
to  some  persons,  even  visibly.”  This  Rationalism, 
however,  is  a  thing  of  degrees.  Where  not  including 
an  absolute  disbelief  in  the  realities  of  a  higher  world, 
it  may  still  involve  a  practical  insensibility  to  their 
influence.  They  are  left  out  of  the  account  in  de¬ 
termining  the  question  of  the  truth  or  falsehood  of 
the  New  Testament  history.  We  would  make  this 
variable  element  still  more  comprehensive,  including 
within  it  the  soul’s  sense  of  sin  and  discernment  of 


22  NATURE  OF  THE  CONFLICT  WITH  UNBELIEF. 

the  beauty  of  holiness.  The  judgment  which  the 
mind  forms  in  respect  to  the  proofs  of  Christian 
Revelation,  is  greatly  affected  by  the  presence*  or 
absence  of  certain  experiences  of  the  heart,  which  are 
rational  and  just,  but  which  belong  in  a  very  un¬ 
equal  degree  to  different  men.  An  illustration  of 
the  general  truth  contained  in  Arnold’s  remark  may 
be  taken  from  another,  but,  in  some  respects,  a  kin¬ 
dred  department.  Let  us  suppose  that  a  painting 
is  discovered  in  some  Italian  town,  which,  it  is 
claimed,  is  a  work  of  Raphael.  Now  for  the  settle¬ 
ment  of  this  question  there  are  two  sources  of  proof. 
There  is,  in  the  first  place,  all  that  bears  on  the 
outward  authentication  of  the  claim ;  as  the  consi¬ 
deration  of  the  place  where  the  painting  is  found, 
the  integrity  of  those  who  had  it  in  charge,  the  his¬ 
torical  circumstances  which  are  said  to  connect  it 
with  the  artist  to  whom  it  is  ascribed,  the  known 
facts  in  his  life  which  tend  to  prove  or  disprove 
the  truth  of  the  pretension.  As  far  as  this  kind 
of  proof  is  concerned,  any  discriminating  person 
may  be  pronounced  competent  to  appreciate  the 
degree  of  force  that  belongs  to  it,  and,  if  the  settle¬ 
ment  of  the  point  depended  exclusively  upon  this 
branch  of  the  evidence,  to  come  to  a  just  conclu¬ 
sion.  But  there  is  obviously  another  sort  of  evi¬ 
dence  to  be  considered  and  weighed.  The  character 
and  merits  of  the  painting,  as  a  work  of  art,  in 
comparison  with  the  high  and  peculiar  excellence 


THE  RATIONALISTIC  TEMPER. 


23 


of  Raphael,  must  enter  into  the  case,  as  a  part  of 
the  proof.  But  how  many  are  the  acute  and  pains¬ 
taking  men  who  are  here  disabled  from  estimating 
— from  feeling ,  we  might  rather  say,  the  force  of 
this  branch  of  the  evidence !  They  can  examine 
the  documents,  they  can  question  the  witnesses, 
they  can  scrutinize  all  the  outward  testimony ;  but 
they  are  destitute  of  the  perceptions  and  feelings 
which  are  the  indispensable  qualification  of  a  critic 
of  art !  The  analogy  holds  true  in  this  particular, 
that  in  the  question  of  the  verity  of  the  Gospel 
histories,  one  great  part  of  the  evidence  lies  in  a 
province  beyond  the  reach  of  the  faculty  of  under¬ 
standing,  in  the  sense  in  which  Arnold  uses  the 
term.  The  whole  mode  of  thought  and  feeling  con¬ 
cerning  God,  and  His  Providence,  and  His  charac¬ 
ter,  concerning  human  sin  and  human  need,  has  a 
decisive  influence  in  determining  the  judgment  to 
give  or  refuse  credit  to  the  historical  proof.  Possi¬ 
bly  God  has  so  arranged  it,  that  while  this  proof  is 
sufficient  to  satisfy  one  whose  spiritual  eye  is  open 
to  these  realities,  it  is  yet  endued  with  no  power  to 
create  conviction  where  such  is  not  the  fact.  He 
who  magnifies  the  presumption  against  supernat¬ 
ural  interposition,  not  allowing  for  the  moral  emer¬ 
gency  that  calls  for  it,  and  hardly  recognizing  the 
Power  from  whom  it  must  come,  puts  on  a  coat-of- 
mail  which  is  proof  against  all  the  arguments  for 
Revelation.  He  is  shut  up  to  unbelief  by  a  logical 


24  NATURE  OE  THE  CONFLICT  WITH  UNBELIEF. 

4 

necessity.  The  effect  of  the  internal  argument  for 
the  supernatural  origin  of  the  Gospel  is  directly 
dependent  upon  that  habit  of  feeling,  either  ra¬ 
tionalistic  or  the  opposite,  the  operation  of  which  we 
have  described.  The  various  particulars  of  this 
argument,  at  least  the  most  important  of  them,  are 
lost  upon  an  unreligious  nature.  The  painful  con¬ 
sciousness  of  sin,  for  example,  is  the  medium  through 
which  is  discerned  the  correspondence  of  the  Gospel 
method  of  salvation  with  the  necessities  and  yearnings 
of  the  soul.  An  experience  of  the  disease  opens  the 
eye  to  the  true  nature  and  the  value  of  the  remedy. 
Such  an  impression  of  the  evil  of  sin  and  of  personal 
guilt,  as  men  like  Luther  and  Pascal  have  had,  un¬ 
covers  the  deep  things  of  the  Gospel.  In  the  Gospel 
system  alone  is  the  situation  of  the  soul,  which  is 
slowly  learned  by  the  soul  itself,  understood  and 
met.  Another  eye  has  looked  through  the  heart 
before  us,  and  anticipated  the  discovery,  which  we 
make  imperfectly  and  by  degrees,  of  its  guilt  and 
want.  We  might  point  out  how  the  same  self- 
knowledge  will  find  in  the  spotless  character  of 
Christ  a  glory  and  impressiveness  uncliscernible  by 
such  as  think  not  how  great  a  thing  it  is  to  be  free 
from  sin.  And  so  the  tremendous  power  exerted 
by  Christianity  to  reform  the  world — to  move  men 
to  forsake  their  sins — will  be  estimated  aright.  It 
is  no  part  of  our  present  purpose  to  exhibit  in  detail 
the  blinding  effect  of  the  rationalistic  temper.  Who- 


THE  RATIONALISTIC  TEMPER. 


25 


ever  carefully  surveys  the  more  recent  literature  of 
skepticism,  will  not  fail  to  see  the  source  from  which 
it  springs.  It  was  by  ignoring  the  existence  and 
character  of  God  that  Hume  constructed  a  plausible 
argument  against  the  possibility  of  proving  a  miracle. 
The  moment  that  the  truth  concerning  God  and  the 
motives  of  His  government  is  taken  into  view,  the 
fallacy  of  Hume’s  reasoning  is  laid  bare.  The  first 
canoil  which  Strauss  lays  at  the  foundation  of  his 
criticism  is  the  impossibility  that  a  miracle  should 
occur.  Any  and  every  other  hypothesis,  he  takes  for 
granted,  is  sooner  to  be  allowed  than  the  admission 
of  a  miraculous  event.  He  assumes,  from  beginning 
to  end,  that  “  a  relation  is  not  historical,  that  the 
thing  narrated  could  not  have  so  occurred,”  when 
“it  is  irreconcilable  with  known,  and  elsewhere  uni¬ 
versally  prevailing,  laws.”  By  this  circumstance, 
before  all  others,  the  unhistorical  character  of  a 
narrative  is  ascertained.1  So  M.  Henan,  at  the  out¬ 
set  of  his  late  work,  remarks :  “  That  the  Gospels 
are  in  part  legendary  is  evident,  since  they  are  full 
of  miracles  and  the  supernatural.” 2  Afterward, 
though  he  does  not  with  Strauss  openly  affirm  the 
strict  impossibility  of  a  miracle,  he  lays  down  “  this 
principle  of  historical  criticism,  that  a  supernatural 
relation  cannot  be  accepted  as  such,  that  it  always 
implies  credulity  or  imposture,  that  the  duty  of  the 

1  Strauss’s  Leben  Jesu ,  B.  I.,  S.  100. 

2  Renan’s  Vie  de  Jesus ,  p.  xv. 


26  NATURE  OF  THE  CONFLICT  WITH  UNBELIEF. 

historian  is  to  interpret  it,  and  to  seek  what  portion 
of  truth  and  what  portion  of  error  it  may  contain.” 
But  how  futile  is  the  attempt  to  convince  one  that 
an  event  has  occurred,  which  he  professes  to  know 
is  either  impossible,  or  never  to  be  believed !  In 
other  words,  how  futile  to  argue  with  one  who  begs 
the  question  in  dispute  ! 

The  foregoing  observations  upon  the  reception 
that  is  given  by  skeptics  at  the  present  day  to  the 
proof  of  Christian  miracles,  bring  us  to  the  deeper 
and  more  general  cause  of  unbelief,  which  is  none 
other  than  the  weakening  or  total  destruction  of 
faith  in  the  supernatural.  It  is  not  the  super¬ 
natural  in  the  Scriptures  alone,  but  the  supernatural 
altogether,  which  in  our  day  is  the  object  of  dis¬ 
belief.  At  the  root  of  the  most  respectable  and 
formidable  attack  upon  Christianity  —  that  which 
emanates  from  the  Tubingen  school  of  historical 
critics — is  an  avowed  Pantheism.  The  doctrine  of 
a  God  to  be  distinguished  from  the  World,  and 
competent  to  produce  events  not  provided  for  by 
natural  causes,  is  cast  away.  The  apotheosis  of 
Nature  or  the  World,  of  course,  leaves  no  room  for 
anything  supernatural,  and  a  miracle  becomes  an 
absurdity.  Indeed,  the  tacit  assumption  that  a 
miracle  is  impossible,  which  we  find  in  so  many 
quarters,  can  only  flow  from  an  Atheistic  or  Pan¬ 
theistic  view  of  the  Universe.  The  Deist  can  con- 


INCONSISTENCY  OF  MODERN  DEISM. 


27 


sistently  take  no  such  position.  He  professes  to 
believe  in  a  living  and  personal  God,  however  he 
may  be  disposed  to  set  Him  at  a  distance  and  to 
curtail  His  agency.  He  must  therefore  acknowl¬ 
edge  the  existence  of  a  Power  who  is  able  at  any 
moment  to  bring  to  pass  an  event  over  and  beyond 
the  capacity  of  natural  causes.  Nay,  if  his  Deism 
be  earnestly  meant,  he  must  himself  believe  in  a 
miracle  of  the  most  stupendous  character — in  the 
creation  of  the  world  by  the  omnipotent  agency  of 
God.  Holding  thus  to  the  miracle  of  creation  as 
an  historical  event,  he  cannot,  without  a  palpable 
inconsistency,  deny  that  miracles  are  conceivable  or 
longer  possible.  Por  no  sincere  Deist  can  suppose 
that  the  Creator  has  chained  Himself  up  by  physical 
laws  of  His  own  making,  and  thereby  cut  Himself 
off  from  new  exertions  of  His  power,  even  within 
the  sphere  where  natural  forces  usually  operate  ac¬ 
cording  to  a  fixed  rule.  One  of  the  marked  charac¬ 
teristics  of  our  time,  therefore,  is  the  loose  manner 
in  which  Deism  is  held  even  by  those  who  profess 
it,  as  shown  in  their  reluctance  to  take  the  con¬ 
sequences  of  their  creed  and  their  readiness  to  pro¬ 
ceed  in  their  treatment  of  .the  subject  of  miracles 
upon  Pantheistic  principles.  The  theories  and  argu¬ 
ments  of  Strauss  and  the  Tubingen  skeptics,  which 
are  the  offshoot  of  their  Pantheistic  system,  are 
adopted,  for  example,  by  Theodore  Parker,  who  pro¬ 
fesses  to  believe  in  the  personality  of  God.  But 


28  NATURE  OF  THE  CONFLICT  WITH  UNBELIEF. 

though  entertaining  this  different  belief,  it  is  plain 
that  he  generally  brings  to  the  discussion  of  miracles 
the  feeling  and  the  postulates  of  a  Pantheist.  His 
Deism  is  so  far  from  being  thorough  and  consistent, 
that  he  not  only,  here  and  there,  falls  into  the  Pan¬ 
theistic  notion  of  sin,  as  a  necessary  stage  of  develop¬ 
ment  and  step  in  human  progress,  but  also  habitually 
regards  a  miracle  as  equivalent  to  an  absurdity. 
A  gifted  female  writer  has  lately  put  forth  a  plea  in 
behalf  of  a  Christless  Theism  which  she  wishes  to 
see  organized  into  a  practical,  working  system.1 
Anxious  respecting  the  possible  fate  of  the  truths 
of  Natural  Religion  in  the  crisis  occasioned  by  the 
supposed  downfall  of  faith  in  Revelation'  she  forgets 
that  skepticism  as  to  the  supernatural  origin  of 
Christianity  generally  results  from  a  prior  adoption 
of  an  Atheistic  or  Pantheistic  philosophy.  The  evil 
she  dreads  is  not  an  accidental  consequence,  but  an 
effective  cause,  of  disbelief  in  the  claims  of  the 
Gospel.  At  least,  faith  in  Revelation  and  faith  in 
the  verities  of  Natural  Religion  sink  together.  The 
same  writer  forgets  also  that  the  doctrine  of  Theism, 
however  supported  by  the  light  of  Nature,  came  to 
us,  in  point  of  fact,  from  the  Bible.  The  nations 
learned  it  from  the  Bible.  It  is  a  truth  which  we 
practically  owe  to  Revelation.  And  as  this  is  the 
case,  so  it  is  natural  that  with  the  denial  of  Revela¬ 
tion,  that  doctrine  should  be  discarded.  The  result 

1  Frances  Power  Cobbe,  Broken  Lights. 


THE  TENDENCY  TO  PANTHEISM. 


29 


of  previous  experiments  should  warn  against  the 
indulgence  of  the  hope  that  Natural  Religion  can 
succeed  in  the  effort  to  embody  itself  in  a  practical 
system  of  worship.  The  Theophilanthropists  of  the 
French  Revolution,  who  espoused  the  three  principles 
— God,  Virtue,  Immortality — tried  to  maintain  relig¬ 
ious  worship.  In  Paris  alone  their  assemblies  at 
one  time  numbered  not  less  than  twenty  thousand 
persons,  and  occupied  ten  churches.  But  there  was 
not  vitality  enough  in  the  system  to  keep  it  alive, 
and  this  apparently  promising  sect  quickly  melted 
away.  In  the  ancient  world,  among  thinking  men, 
skepticism  as  to  the  supernatural  on  the  one  hand, 
and  the  Christian  faith  on  the  other,  were  the  two 
combatants,  and  so  it  will  be  now.  As  far  as  this 
class  are  alienated  from  Christianity,  they  are  more 
commonly  alienated  in  an  almost  equal  degree  from 
all  religious  faith.  Signs  of  such  an  obscuration  of 
faith  appear  in  various  quarters.  Not  a  few  ill- 
supported  speculations  of  physical  science,  which 
have  been  lately  brought  before  the  public,  have 
their  real  motive  in  a  desperate  reluctance  to  admit 
a  supernatural  cause.  The  most  unfounded  con¬ 
jectures  are  furnished  in  the  room  of  argument,  so 
earnest  is  the  desire  of  some  minds  to  create  the 
belief  that  the  worlds  were  not  framed  by  the  word 
of  God,  and  that  things  which  are  seen  were  made 
of  things  which  do  appear.  To  this  we  must  refer 
the  ambition  of  some  philosophers  to  establish  their 


30  NATURE  OF  THE  CONFLICT  WITH  UNBELIEF. 

descent  from  the  inferior  animals — a  wild  theory, 
only  to  be  compared  with  the  old  mythologic  doc¬ 
trine  of  transmigration.  The  disposition  to  remove 
God  from  any  active  connection  with  the  world,  or 
to  transport  Him  as  far  back  as  possible  into  the 
remote  past,  is  the  real  motive  of  this  attempt,  which 
can  plead  no  evidence  in  its  favor,  to  invalidate  abso¬ 
lutely  the  distinction  of  species  and  discredit  our 
own  feeling  of  personal  identity  and  separateness  of 
being.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  a  powerful 
tendency  to  Pantheistic  modes  of  thought  is  rife  at 
the  present  day.  The  popular  literature,  even  in 
our  country,  is  far  more  widely  infected  in  this  way 
than  unobservant  readers  are  aware.  The  laws  of 
Nature  are  hypostatized — Spoken  of  as  if  they  were 
a  self-active  being.  And  not  unfrequently  the  same 
tendency  leads  to  the  virtual,  if  not  explicit,  denial 
of  the  free  and  responsible  nature  of  man.  History 
is  resolved  by  a  class  of  writers  into  the  movement 
of  a  great  machine — into  the  evolution  of  events  with 
which  the  free-will  neither  of  God  nor  of  man  has 
any  connection.1 

We  are  thus  brought  back,  in  our  analysis  of 
the  controversy  with  the  existing  unbelief,  to  the 
postulates  of  Natural  Religion.  On  these  the  Chris- 

1  The  tendencies  to  Naturalism,  at  work  at  the  present  day, 
are  forcibly  and  comprehensively  touched  upon  in  Chapter  I. 
of  Bushnell’s  “Nature  and  the  Supernatural” — a  work  which, 
in  its  main  parts,  is  equally  profound  and  inspiring. 


THE  TENDENCY  TO  PANTHEISM. 


31 


tian  Apologist  founds  tlie  presumption,  or  anterior 
probability,  that  a  Revelation  will  be  given.  These, 
together  with  the  intrinsic  excellence  of  Christianity, 
he  employs  to  rebut  and  remove  the  presumption, 
which,  however  philosophers  may  differ  as  to  the 
exact  source  and  strength  of  it,  undoubtedly  lies 
against  the  occurrence  of  a  miracle.  The  antecedent 
improbability  that  a  miracle  will  occur,  disappears 
in  the  case  of  Christianity.  The  issue  relates  to  the 
miracles ;  but  the  ultimate  source  of  the  conflict  is 
a  false  or  feeble  view,  on  the  part  of  the  unbeliever, 
of  the  primitive  truths  of  religion.  This  will  explain 
how  a  new  awakening  of  conscience,  or  of  religious 
sensibility,  has  been  known  to  dispel  the  incredulity 
with  which  he  had  looked  upon  the  claims  of  Revela¬ 
tion. 

It  is  more  and  more  apparent  that  the  cause  of 
Natural  Religion,  and  that  of  Revealed  Religion, 
are  bound  up  together.  But  the  native  convictions 
of  the  human  mind  concerning  God  and  duty  cannot 
be  permanently  dislodged.  Atheism  is  an  affront 
alike  to  the  inquiring  reason  and  the  uplooking  soul 
of  man.  Pantheism  mocks  his  religious  nature.  It 
is  inconsistent  with  religion — with  prayer,  with  wor¬ 
ship — with  that  communion  with  a  higher  Being, 
which  is  religion.  It  is  inconsistent,  also,  with 
morality,  in  any  earnest  meaning  of  the  term ;  for 
it  empties  free-will  and  responsibility,  holiness  and 
sin,  of  their  meaning.  Every  one  who  acknowledges 


32  NATURE  OE  THE  CONELICT  WITH  UNBELIEF. 


the  feeling  of  guilt  to  be  a  reality  and  to  represent 
the  truth,  and  every  one  who  blames  the  conduct ' 
of  another,  in  the  very  act  denies  the  Pantheistic 
theory.  Conscience  must  prove,  in  the  long  run, 
stronger  than  any  speculation,  no  matter  how  plausi¬ 
ble.  In  the  soul  itself,  then,  in  its  aspiration  after 
the  living  God  and  its  conviction  of  freedom  and 
of  sin,  there  is  erected  an  everlasting  barrier  against 
the  inroads  of  false  philosophy,  and  one  that  will 
be  found  to  embrace  within  the  shelter  of  its  walls 
the  cause  of  Christianity  itself. 


ESSAY  II. 


THE  GENUINENESS  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 

The  Gospel  that  bears  the  name  of  John  is  one 
of  the  main  pillars  of  historical  Christianity.  Chris¬ 
tianity  would  indeed  remain  were  the  apostolic  author¬ 
ship  and  the  credibility  of  this  Gospel  disproved ;  for 
before  it  was  written,  Jesus  and  the  resurrection  had 
been  preached  by  faithful  witnesses  over  a  large  part 
of  the  Roman  world.  Christianity  would  remain ;  but 
our  conception  of  Christianity  and  of  Christ  would  be 
materially  altered.  The  profoundest  minds  in  the 
Church,  from  Clement  of  Alexandria  to  Luther,  and 
from  Luther  to  Niebuhr,  have  expressed  their  sense  of 
the  singular  charm  and  surpassing  value  of  this  Gospel. 
In  recent  times,  however,  the  genuineness  of  the  fourth 
Gospel  has  been  impugned.  It  was  denied  to  be  the 
work  of  John  by  individual  skeptics  at  the  close  of  the 
last  century;  but  their  attack  was  not  of  a  nature 
either  to  excite  or  to  merit  much  attention.  Not  until 
Bretschneider  published  (in  1820)  his  Probabilia  did 
the  question  become  the  subject  of  serious  discussion. 
But  the  assault  which  has  been  renewed  by  the  critics 
of  the  Tubingen  school,  with  Baur  at  their  head,  has 

more  lately  given  rise  to  a  most  earnest  and  important 
3 


34  GENUINENESS  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 

controversy.  The  rejection  of  John’s  Gospel  by  these 
critics  is  a  part  of  their  attempted  reconstruction  of 
early  Christian  history.  Starting  with  the  assertion  of 
a  radical  difference  and  hostility  between  the  Jewish 
and  the  Gentile  types  of  Christianity, — between  the 
party  of  the  Church  that  adhered  to  Peter  and  the 
original  disciples,  and  the  party  that  adhered  to  Paul 
and  his  doctrine, — they  ascribe  several  books  of  the 
New  Testament  to  the  effort,  made  at  a  later  day,  to 
bridge  over  this  gulf.  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles  pro¬ 
ceeds  from  this  motive,  and  is  a  designed  distortion 
and  misrepresentation  of  events  connected  with  the 
conflict  about  the  rights  of  the  Gentile  converts.  And 
the  fourth  Gospel  is  a  product  of  the  same  pacifying 
tendency.  It  was  written,  they  say,  about  the  middle 
of  the  second  century,  by  a  Christian  of  Gentile  birth, 
who  assumed  the  name  of  John  in  order  to  give  an 
apostolic  sanction  to  his  higher  theological  platform,  in 
which  love  takes  the  place  of  faith,  and  the  Jewish 
system  is  shown  to  be  fulfilled,  and  so  abolished,  by 
the  offering  of  Christ,  the  true  paschal  Lamb.  We 
hold  that  the  fundamental  proposition,  which  affirms  a 
radical  hostility  between  Pauline  and  Petrine  Chris¬ 
tianity,  can  be  proved  to  be  false,  even  by  the  docu¬ 
ments  which  are  acknowledged  by  the  Tubingen  school 
to  be  genuine  and  trustworthy ;  and  that  the  super¬ 
structure  which  is  reared  upon  this  foundation  can  be 
proved,  in  all  its  main  timbers,  to  be  equally  unsub¬ 
stantial.  In  the  present  Essay,  however,  we  shall  take 


PLAN  OF  THE  ESSAY. 


35 


up  the  single  subject  of  the  authorship  of  the  fourth 
Gospel,  and  shall  make  it  a  part  of  our  plan  to  refute 
the  arguments  which  are  brought  forward  by  the  skep¬ 
tical  critics  on  this  question — the  most  important 
critical  question  connected  with  the  New  Testament 
canon.  But  while  we  propose  fairly  to  consider  these 
arguments,  we  have  no  doubt  that  the  attack  upon  the 
genuineness  of  John  has  its  root  in  a  determined 
unwillingness  to  admit  the  historical  reality  of  the 
miracles  which  that  Gospel  records.  This  feeling, 
which  sways  the  mind  of  the  critics  of  whom  we 
speak,  is  the  ultimate  and  real  ground  of  their  refusal 
to  believe  that  this  narrative  proceeds  from  an  eyewit¬ 
ness  of  the  life  of  Jesus.  And  were  there  nothing  in 
Christianity  to  remove  this  natural  incredulity,  and  to 
overturn  the  presumption  against  the  occurrence  of 
miracles,  the  ground  taken  by  the  Tubingen  critics  in 
reference  to  this  question  might  be  reasonable.  It  is 
right  to  observe  that  behind  all  their  reasoning  there 
lies  this  deep-seated,  and,  in  our  opinion,  unwarrantable 
prejudice. 

We  have  recorded  below  the  titles  of  some  of  the 
more  recent  defences  of  the  Johannean  authorship  : 1 
Bleek’s  Introduction,  in  which  the  author  discusses 

1  Bleek’s  Einleitung  in  das  JV.  71,  1862,  and  Beitrdge  zur  Evan- 
gelien-Kritih,  1864.  Meyer’s  Kom.  liber  das  Evang.  des  Johannes ,  3e 
A.,  1856.  De  Wette’s  Kom.  uber  das  Evang.  des  Johannes ,  4e  ed. 
(edited  by  Bruckner),  1852.  Schneider’s  Aechtheit  des  Johann. 
Evang.,  1854.  Mayer’s  Aechtheit  des  Evang.  nach  Johann .,  1854. 
Ebrard’s  Wissenchaftl.  Kritilc  der  Evangel.  Geschichte ,  2°  A.,  1850,  pp. 


36 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 


the  question  at  length,  with  his  wonted  clearness  and 
golden  candor,  and  his  Contributions  to  the  Criticism  of 
the  Gospels,  in  which  some  important  points  are  treated 
more  fully ;  Meyer’s  Introduction  to  his  Commentary 
on  John,  which  contains  a  brief,  condensed  exhibition 
of  the  principal  points  of  argument ;  Bruckner’s 
edition  of  De  Wette’s  Commentary  on  John,  in  which 
the  later  editor  has  presented  the  internal  proofs  with 
much  force,  and  has  noticed  in  detail  the  interpretations 
of  Baur ;  Schneider’s  little  tract,  which  handles  with 
ability  certain  parts  of  the  external  evidence,  but  falls 
far  short  of  being  a  complete  view ;  E wald’s  Essays, 
which  contribute  fresh  and  original  thoughts  upon  the 
subject,  but  are  not  without  faults  in  opinion  as  well  as 
temper ;  Ebrard’s  Critical  Examination  of  the  Evangeli¬ 
cal  History,  which,  notwithstanding  an  occasional  flip¬ 
pancy  of  style  and  tendency  to  overstatement,  contains 
many  valuable  suggestions ;  and  Mayer’s  copious 
treatise,  in  which  the  external  testimonies  are  ably  con¬ 
sidered,  though  too  much  in  the  temper  of  a  contro- 

828-952.  Ewald’s  Jahrb.,  III.  s.  146  seq.,  V.  s.  178  seq.,  X.s.  83  seq. 
— The  following  are  among  the  most  important  Essays  in  opposition 
to  the  Genuineness  of  John:  Baur,  Kritische  Untersuchungen  uber 
die  Kanon.  Evangelien  (1847),  and  Die  JoJianneische  Frage  u.  Hire 
neuesten  Beantwortungen ,  in  Baur  and  Zeller’s  Theologische  Yalirbu- 
cher,  1854,  pp.  196-287 ;  Zeller,  Dieaussern  Zeugnisse  uber  das  Daseyn 
und  den  Er sprung  des  vierten  Evangeliums ,  in  his  Theol.  Yahrb.  1845, 
pp.  579-656,  comp.  1847,  pp.  136-174  ;  Hilgenfeld,  Die  Evangelien  u. 
s.  w.  (1854)  ;  Strauss,  Das  Leben  Jesu  fur  das  deutsche  Volk  (1864), 
p.  62  seq. 


RESIDENCE  OF  JOHN  AT  EPHESUS. 


37 


versialist,  and  with  occasional  passages  not  adapted  to 
convince  any  save  members  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
church,  of  which  the  author  is  one.  We  intend  to 
present  our  readers  with  a  summary  of  the  arguments, 
most  of  which  are  touched  upon  in  one  or  another  of 
these  writers ;  although  we  lay  claim  at  least  to 
independence  in  weighing,  verifying,  and  combining 
the  various  considerations  which  we  have  to  bring 
forward. 

That  the  apostle  John  spent  the  latter  part  of  his 
life  in  Proconsular  Asia,  in  particular  at  Ephesus,  is  a 
fact  fully  established  by  trustworthy  testimony  of 
ancient  ecclesiastical  writers.  At  the  conference  of 
Paul  with  the  other  apostles  in  Jerusalem  (Gal.  ii.  1 
seq. ;  Acts  xv.),  which  occurred  about  twenty  years 
after  the  death  of  Christ,  John  is  mentioned,  in  con¬ 
nection  with  Peter  and  James,  as  one  of  the  pillars  of 
the  Jerusalem  church.  Whether  he  was  in  Jerusalem 
on  the  occasion  of  Paul’s  last  visit,  we  are  not  informed. 
It  is  in  the  highest  degree  probable  that  John’s  resi¬ 
dence  at  Ephesus  began  after  the  period  of  Paul’s 
activity  there,  and  either  after  or  not  long  before  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem.  Among  the  witnesses  to  the 
fact  of  his  living  at  Ephesus  in  the  latter  part  of  the 
second  century,  Polycrates  and  Irenaeus  are  of  especial 
importance.  Poly  crates  was  himself  a  bishop  of 
Ephesus  near  the  end  of  the  second  century,  who  had 
become  a  Christian  as  early  as  a.  d.  131,  and  seven 


38 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 


of  whose  kinsmen  had  previously  been  bishops  or 
presbyters.  In  his  letter  to  Victor,  he  expressly  says 
that  John  died  and  was  buried  at  Ephesus.1  Irenaeus, 
who  was  born  in  Asia,  says  of  the  old  presbyters, 
immediate  disciples  of  the  apostles,  whom  he  had 
known,  that  they  had  been  personally  conversant  with 
John,  and  that  he  had  remained  among  them  up  to  the 
times  of  Trajan  (whose  reign  was  from  the  year  98  to 
117).  Some  of  them,  he  says,  had  not  only  seen  John, 
but  other  apostles  also.2  Whether  the  ancient  stories 
be  true  or  not,  of  his  fleeing  from  the  bath  on  seeing 
there  the  heretic  Cerinthus,  of  his  recovering  the  young 
man  who  joined  a  company  of  robbers,  or  the  more 
probable  story,  found  in  Jerome,  of  his  being  carried 
in  his  old  age  into  the  Christian  assemblies,  to  which 
he  addressed  the  simple  exhortation :  “  Love  one 
another/’  they  show  a  general  knowledge  of  the  fact 
of  his  residing  at  Ephesus,  and  of  his  living  to  an 
extreme  old  age.3  His  Gospel,  also,  according  to  the  * 
testimony  of  Irenaeus,  Clement,  and  others,  and  the 
general  belief,  was  the  last  written  of  the  four,  and  the 
tradition  places  its  composition  near  the  close  of  his 
life. 

1  Euseb.,  Lib.  Y.  c.  24;  cf.  Lib.  III.  c.  31. 

2  Adv.  Haer .,  Lib.  II.  c.  22,  al.  39.  §  5. 

3  Iren.  adv.  Haer.,  Lib.  III.  c.  3.  §4.  (Euseb.,  Lib.  IY.  c.  14) — 
Clem.  Alex.,  Quis  dives  salvetur ,  c.  42.  (Euseb.,  Lib.  III.  c.  23.) — 
Hieron.  in  Ep.  ad  Galat.  YI.  10. 


THE  EXTERNAL  EVIDENCE. 


39 


The  External  Evidence. 

Mayer  begins  bis  argument  by  an  appeal  to  J erome 
and  Eusebius ;  tbe  one  writing  in  the  later,  and  the 
other  in  the  early,  part  of  the  fourth  century  ;  both 
having  in  their  hands  the  literature  of  the  Church 
before  them;  both  diligent  in  their  researches  and 
inquiries ;  both  knowing  how  to  discriminate  between 
books  which  had  been  received  without  contradiction, 
and  those  whose  authority  had  either  been  disputed  or 
might  fairly  be  questioned ;  and  yet  neither  having  any 
knowledge  or  suspicion  that  the  fourth  Cospel  was  not 
known  to  the  writers  of  the  first  half  of  the  second 
century,  with  whom  they  were  familiar.  This  appeal 
is  not  without  force ;  but  instead  of  dwelling  on  the  in¬ 
ference  which  it  appears  to  warrant,  we  choose  to  begin 
with  the  unquestioned  fact  of  the  universal  reception 
of  the  fourth  Gospel  as  genuine  in  the  last  quarter  of 
the  second  century.  At  that  time  we  find  that  it  is 
held  in  every  part  of  Christendom  to  be  the  work  of 
the  Apostle  John.  The  prominent  witnesses  are  Tertul- 
lian  in  North  Africa,  Clement  in  Alexandria,  and 
Irenaeus  in  Gaul.  Though  the  date  of  Tertullian’s 
birth  is  uncertain,  a  considerable  portion  of  his  life 
fell  within  the  second  century,  and  his  book  against 
Marcion,  from  which  his  fullest  testimony  is  drawn,  was 
composed  in  207  or  208.  His  language  proves  the 
universal  reception  of  our  four  Gospels,  and  of  John 
among  them.  These  together,  and  these  exclusively, 


40 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 


were  considered  the  authentic  histories  of  the  life  of 
Christ,  being  composed  either  by  apostles  themselves 
or  by  their  companions.1  The  testimony  of  Clement 
is  the  more  important  from  his  scholarly  character  and 
his  wide  acquaintance  with  the  Church.  He  became 
the  head  of  the  Catechetical  school  at  Alexandria  about 
the  year  190.  Having  been  previously  a  pupil  of 
various  philosophers,  he  had  in  his  mature  years  sought 
instruction  from  Christian  teachers  in  Greece,  in  Lower 
Italy,  in  Syria,  in  Palestine,  as  well  as  in  Egypt ;  and 
his  works  which  remain  prove  his  extensive  learning. 
Not  only  is  the  genuineness  of  the  fourth  Gospel  an 
undisputed  fact  with  Clement,  but,  not  to  speak  of 
other  testimony  from  him,  he  gave  in  his  lost  work, 
the  Institutions,  quoted  by  Eusebius,  “  a  tradition 
concerning  the  order  of  the  Gospels  which  he  had 
received  from  presbyters  of  more  ancient  times  ;  ”  that 
is,  concerning  the  chronological  order  of  their  composi¬ 
tion.2  But  of  these  three  witnesses,  Irenaeus,  from  the 
circumstances  of  his  life  as  well  as  the  peculiar  charac- 

1  Adv.  Marcion.,  Lib.  IV.  c.  2 ;  also  c.  5.  He  says  in  this  last 

place  :  “  In  snmma,  si  constat  id  verius  quod  prius,  id  prius  quod  et 

ab  initio,  id  ab  initio  quod  ab  apostolis ;  pariter  utique  constabit,  id 
esse  ab  apostolis  traditum,  quod  apud  ecclesias  apostolorum  fuerit 
sacrosanctum.”  Then  shortly  after  :  “  eadem  auctoritas  ecclesiarum 

apostolicarum  caeteris  quoque  patrocinabitur  evangeliis,  quae  proinde 
per  illas,  et  secundum  illas  habemus :  ”  here  follows  the  enumeration 
of  the  four.  It  is  historical  evidence — the  knowledge  possessed  by 
the  churches  founded  by  the  apostles, — on  which  Tertullian  builds. 

2  Euseb.,  Lib.  YI.  c.  14.  That  the  four  Gospels  alone  were  re¬ 
garded  as  possessed  of  canonical  authority  is  evident  from  other 


THE  EXTERNAL  EVIDENCE  :  IRENAEUS. 


41 


ter  of  his  testimony,  is  the  most  important.  A  Greek, 
born  in  Asia  Minor  about  the  year  140,  coming  to 
Lyons  and  holding  there  first  the  office  of  presbyter, 
and  then,  in  178,  that  of  bishop,  he  was  familiar  with 
the  Church  in  both  the  East  and  the  West.  Moreover, 
he  had  in  his  youth  known  and  conversed  with  the 
aged  Polycarp  of  Smyrna,  the  immediate  disciple  of 
John,  and  retained  a  vivid  recollection  of  the  person 
and  the  words  of  this  remarkable  man.  Now  Irenaeus 
not  only  testifies  to  the  universal  acceptance  in  the 
Church  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  but  also  argues  fancifully 
that  there  must  be  four  and  only  four  Gospels  to  stand 
as  pillars  of  the  truth ;  thus  showing  how  firmly  set¬ 
tled  was  his  faith,  and  that  of  others,  in  the  exclusive 
authority  of  the  canonical  Gospels.1  To  the  value  of 

places  in  Clement.  In  reference  to  an  alleged  conversation  between 
Salome  and  Jesus,  Clement  says:  “We  have  not  this  saying  in  the 
four  Gospels  which  have  been  handed  down  to  us,  but  in  that  according 
to  the  Egyptians, — eV  Tens'  wapabebopevois  T)pdv  rcTTapcriv  ei/ayyeXloLs  ovk 
e^npev  to  prjTov,  dXX *  e u  ra>  kcit  Alyvirrlovs.  StTOin .,  Lib.  III.  C.  13. 
(See  Lardner,  Yol.  II.  pp.  236  and  251). 

1  Adv.  Haer. ,  Lib.  III.  c.  1.  §  1.  This  noted  passage  on  the  four 
Gospels  thus  begins  :  “  Non  enim  per  alios  dispositionem  salutis  nos- 
trae  cognovimus,  quam  per  eos,  per  quos  evangelium  pervenit  ad  nos ; 
quod  quidem  tunc  praeconaverunt,  postea  vero  per  Dei  voluntatem  in 
scripturis  nobis  tradiderunt,  fandamentum  et  columnam  fidei  nostrae 
futurum.”  Like  Tertullian,  he  makes  his  appeal  to  sure  historical 
evidence.  In  speaking  of  Polycarp  and  the  men  who  followed  him, 
he  says  of  the  former  (III.  3.  4) :  “qui  virmulto  majoris  auctoritatis 
et  fidelior  veritatis  est  testis,  quam  Valentinus  et  Marcion  et  reliqui, 
qui  sunt  perversae  sententiae.”  The  curious  attempt  to  show  that 
there  could  not  be  more  or  fewer  than  four  authoritative  Gospels  is  in 
Lib.  III.  c.  11.  §  8. 


42 


GENUINENESS  OE  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 


his  testimony  we  shall  have  occasion  again  to  refer. 
We  simply  ask  here  if  it  was  possible  for  Irenaeus  to 
express  himself  in  this  way — to  affirm  not  merely  the 
genuineness  of  the  four  Gospels,  but  the  metaphysical 
necessity  that  there  should  be  four — if  John’s  Gospel 
had  been  made  known  for  the  first  time  during  his 
lifetime,  or  shortly  before.  With  these  noteworthy 
witnesses,  we  associate  the  great  name  of  Origen,  the 
successor  of  Clement  at  Alexandria,  although  Origen’s 
theological  career  is  later,  terminating  near  the  middle 
of  the  third  century,  he  having  been  born  but  fifteen 
years  before  the  end  of  the  second ;  for  his  extensive 
journeys  through  the  Eastern  Church,  and  as  far  as 
Rome,  and  especially  his  critical  curiosity  and  erudition, 
together  with  the  fact  that  he  was  born  of  Christian 
parents,  give  extraordinary  weight  to  the  evidence  he 
affords  of  the  universal  reception  of  John’s  Gospel. 
In  the  same  category  with  Irenaeus,  Clement,  and 
Tertullian,  belong  the  Canon  of  Muratori,  or  the  list 
of  canonical  books  which  Muratori  found  in  an  old 
manuscript  in  the  Milan  library,  and  which  is  certainly 
not  later  than  the  end  of  the  second  century ;  and 
the  ancient  Syriac  version  of  the  New  Testament, 
the  Peshito,  having  a  like  antiquity.  In  both  these 
monuments  the  Gospel  of  John  is  found  in  its  proper 
place.  Nor  should  we  omit  to  mention  here  Polyc- 
rates,  the  bishop  of  Ephesus,  who,  as  we  have  said, 
represented  the  Asia  Minor  churches  in  the  controversy 
concerning  the  celebration  of  Easter  in  the  year  196, 


THE  EXTERNAL  EVIDENCE. 


43 


and  in  his  letter  to  Victor,  the  Roman  bishop,  alludes 
to  John,  who,  he  says,  “  leaned  upon  the  Lord’s 
breast,”  6  stzI  to  Orfj&og  tov  xvq'lov  dvantocov} 
Even  Hilgenfeld,  one  of  the  most  forward  of  the 
Tubingen  critics,  does  not  longer  deny  that  the  expres¬ 
sion  is  drawn  by  Poly  crates  from  John  xiii.  25  (xxi. 
20).  It  proves  the  acceptance  of  John’s  Gospel  by 
the  Christians  of  Asia  Minor. 

Looking  about  among  the  fragments  of  Christian 
literature  that  have  come  down  to  us  from  the  second 
half  of  the  second  century,  we  meet  with  Tatian,  sup¬ 
posed  to  have  been  a  pupil  of  Justin  Martyr,  though 
after  the  master’s  death  the  disciple  swerved  from  his 
teaching.  It  is  now  conceded  by  Baur  and  Zeller  that 
in  his  apologetic  treatise,  the  0 ratio  ad  Graecos,  com¬ 
posed  not  far  from  the  year  170,  he  quotes  repeatedly 
from  the  Gospel  of  John.2  There  is  also  no  reason  to 
doubt  that  his  work  entitled  Diatessaron — a  sort  of 
exegetical  Harmony — was  composed  upon  the  basis  of 
our  four  Gospels.  Eusebius  says  that  Tatian  “  having 
formed  a  certain  body  and  collection  of  Gospels,  I 
know  not  how,  has  given  this  the  title  Diatessaron,  that 
is,  the  Gospel  by  the  four,  or  the  Gospel  formed  of  the 
four,  which  is  in  the  possession  of  some  even  now.”  3 


1  Euseb.,  Lib.  V.  c.  24. 

2  The  following  are  examples, —  Oratio ,  c.  13  :  kcl\  tovto  iauv  apa 
to  clprjpievov’  r]  aKoria  to  (poos  ov  KaTa\ap.(3avei.  C.  19  :  navra  vir  avrov, 
Kai  X^P'15  avrov  ytyovev  ovde  ev.  C.  5  :  6  \6yos  iv  apxfi  yevvrj'Oiels.  C.  4  : 
nv(vp.a  6  3edy.  See  Bleek,  s.  229. 

3  Lib.  IV.  c.  29. 


44 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 


Precisely  liow  the  work  was  constructed  from  the 
four  Gospels,  Eusebius  appears  not  to  have  known. 
He  testifies,  however,  to  the  fact  of  its  being  in  the 
hands  of  catholic  Christians.  At  the  beginning  of  the 
fifth  century  Theodoret  tells  us  that  he  had  found 
two  hundred  copies  of  Tatian’s  work  in  circulation,  and 
had  taken  them  away,  substituting  for  them  the  four 
Gospels.1  A  Syriac  translation  of  this  work  began, 
according  to  a  later  Syrian  writer,  Bar  Salibi,  with  the 
opening  words  of  the  Gospel  of  John  :  “  In  the  begin¬ 
ning  was  the  Word.”  To  this  Syriac  edition,  Ephraem 
Syrus,  who  died  in  378,  wrote  a  commentary,  as  Syriac 
writers  inform  us ;  and  this  translation  must  therefore 
have  been  early  made.  The  attempt  of  Credner  to 
invalidate  this  evidence  on  the  ground  that  the  Syrians 
confounded  Tatian  with  Ammonius,  the  author  of  a 
Harmony  in  the  early  part  of  the  third  century,  is 
overthrown  by  the  fact  that  Bar  Salibi  distinguishes 
the  two  authors  and  their  works.2  Considering  all  the 
evidence  in  the  case,  together  with  the  fact  that  Tatian 
is  known  to  have  quoted  the  Gospel  of  John  in  his 
Oratio,  there  is  no  room  for  doubting  that  this  Gospel 
was  one  of  the  four  at  the  foundation  of  the  Diatessa- 
ron.  Contemporary  with  Tatian  was  Theopliilus,  who 
became  bishop  of  Antioch  in  169.  In  his  work  Ad 
Autolycum,  he  describes  John’s  Gospel  as  a  part  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures,  and  John  himself  as  a  writer  guided 

1  Theodoret,  Haevet ,  Fab.,  I.  20,  as  cited  by  Bleek,  s.  230. 

2  See  Meyer’s  Einl.,  s.  9.  Lardner,  Yol.  II.  p.  445.  Bleek,  s.  230. 


THE  EXTERNAL  EVIDENCE. 


45 


by  the  Holy  Spirit.1  This  explicit  statement  is  a  most 
weighty  item  of  evidence.  In  addition  to  this,  Jerome 
states  that  Theophilus  composed  a  commentary  upon 
the  Gospels,  in  which  he  handled  their  contents  synop- 
tically :  “  quatuor  evangelistarum  in  unum  opus  dicta 
compingens.”  2  There  is  no  good  reason  for  questioning 
the  statement  of  Jerome  respecting  a  work  with  which 
he  appears  to  have  been  himself  acquainted.  A  contem¬ 
porary  of  Theophilus  is  Athenagoras.  His  acquaint¬ 
ance  with  the  Prologue  of  John’s  Gospel  may  be 
inferred  with  a  high  degree  of  probability  from  his 
frequent  designation  of  Christ  as  the  Word.  “  Through 
him,”  he  says,  “  all  things  were  made,  the  Pather  and 
Son  being  one ;  and  the  Son  being  in  the  Pather,  and 
the  Pather  in  the  Son  3 — language  obviously  founded 
on  John  i.  3 ;  x.  30,  38;  xiv.  11.  Another  contem¬ 
porary  of  Theophilus,  Apollinaris,  bishop  of  Plierapolis 
in  Phrygia,  in  a  fragment  found  in  the  Paschal 
Chronicle,  makes  a  reference  to  the  pouring  out  of 
water  and  blood  from  the  side  of  Jesus  (John  xix.  34), 
and  in  another  passage  clearly  implies  the  existence 
and  authority  of  the  fourth  Gospel.4  The  Epistle  of 
the  churches  of  Vienne  and  Lyons,  written  in  177, 

1  '  OZev  diddcrKovJLu  fjpds  at  dyiai  ypacfiai  <a\  ndvres  oi  nvevpaTocpopoi, 

«£  a>i>  T  oddvvrjs  \iyei'  iv  dp-^rj ,  k.t.A.,  quoting  John  i.  1,  3  (Lib.  II. 
c.  22). 

2  Hieron.  de  viris  ill .,  25,  and  Ep,,  151.  Bleek,  s.  230. 

8  Suppl.  pro  Christianis ,  c.  10. 

4  Chron.  Pa8c?i .,  pp.  13,  14,  ed.  Dindorf,  or  Routh’s  Eeliq.  Scocrae , 
I.  160,  161, 2d  edit.  See  Meyer’s  Einl .,  s.  9.  There  appears  to  he  no 


46 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 


and  presenting  an  account  of  the  sufferings  of  their 
martyrs  in  their  great  persecution  under  Marcus 
Aurelius,  an  epistle  from  which  Eusebius  gives  copious 
extracts,1  contains  a  clear  reference  to  John  xvi.  2,  in 
the  passage  where  they  say :  “  Then  was  fulfilled  that 
which  was  spoken  by  our  Lord,  that  the  time  will  come 
when  whosoever  killeth  you  will  think  that  he  doeth 
God  service.”  The  same  epistle,  applying  the  thought 
of  1  John  iii.  16  (comp.  John  xv.  12,  13),  praises  the 
love  of  one  of  their  martyrs  who  “  was  willing  in 
defense  of  the  brethren  to  lay  down  his  own  life.”  2 
But  every  testimony  to  the  first  epistle  is,  for  reasons 
to  which  we  shall  advert  hereafter,  virtually  a  testimony 
for  the  Gospel. 

We  go  back  now  to  the  first  half  of  the  second 
century,  and  among  the  remnants  of  early  Christian 
literature  which  remain,  where  so  much  has  irrecover¬ 
ably  perished,  the  writer  who  is  most  entitled  to  con¬ 
sideration  is  Justin  Martyr.  He  was  bom  about  the 
year  89,  and  his  life  extended  at  least  ten  years  beyond 
the  middle  of  the  next  century.  A  native  of  Elavia 
Neapolis,  near  the  ancient  Sichem,  he  had  visited  vari¬ 
ous  countries,  having  been  at  Alexandria  and  Ephesus 
before  he  came  to  Borne.  He  had,  therefore,  an  exten¬ 
sive  acquaintance  with  the  Church.  It  is  well  known 

sufficient  reason  for  questioning  the  genuineness  of  these  fragments, 
as  is  done  by  Lardner  (Yol.  II.  p.  315),  and  Neander  ( Church  Hist., 
Yol.  I.  p.  298,  NT.  2).  See  Schneider,  s.  52. 

1  Euseb.,  Lib.  Y.  c.  1. 

9  Epist.Eccl ,  Vien.  et  Lugd .,  cc.  3,4.  Routh.  Eeliq.  Sacrae ,  I.  298,  300. 


THE  EXTERNAL  EVIDENCE  :  JUSTIN. 


47 


that  Justin  in  different  places  refers  to  works  which 
are  styled  by  him  the  Records  or  Memoirs  by  the 
Apostles  and  their  Followers  or  Companions,  and  which, 
as  he  observes,  “  are  called  Gospels/’ 1  He  quotes 
from  these  as  the  authentic  and  recognized  sources  of 
knowledge  respecting  the  Saviour’s  life  and  teaching. 
He  further  states  that  they  are  read  on  Sundays  in  the 
Christian  assemblies,  where  “  all  who  live  in  cities  or  in 
country  districts  ”  meet  together  for  worship.  They 
are  read,  he  says,  in  connection  with  the  writings  of  the 
Old  Testament  prophets :  and  when  the  reader  con¬ 
cludes,  the  people  are  instructed  and  exhorted  “  to  the 
imitation  of  these  excellent  things.” 2  The  evangelical 
histories  which  he  has  in  mind,  then,  were  used  in  the 
public  worship  of  Christians  everywhere.  What  were 
these  Records  or  Memoirs  ?  This  title,  we  may 
observe,  was  probably  given  to  the  gospel  histories, 
partly  for  the  reason  that  in  Justin’s  view  they  bore  a 
character  analogous  to  Xenophon’s  Memorabilia  of 
Socrates,  and  also  because  it  was  a  designation  intelli¬ 
gible  to  those  for  whose  benefit  he  was  writing.  Of  the 

1  tcl  diropvrjpovevpaTa  toov  anoaToXov.  Apol.,  I.  C.  67*  dirop-vripovev- 
paai,  a  (j)r]iu  V7 to  tuiv  CLTrouTokoiv  avrov  /cal  to) v  iicelvois  napaKoXov^Tjcrdv - 
Tcov  awrcrd^ai.  Dial.  C.  Thyph .,  C.  103.  ol  yap  anoaroXoi  iv  rois 
yevopcvois  vn  avreov  dnopvrjpovevpaa^iv^  a  KaXeirai  eua-yyeXta,  ovrcos 
napeSoxav.  Apol I.  c.  66.  Justin  twice  uses  the  term  to  evayyekiovi 
as  the  later  fathers  often  do,  to  denote  the  Gospels  collectively. 
(Dial.  c.  Tryph .,  cc.  10,  100.)  This  designation  implies  that  the  Gos¬ 
pels  to  which  he  refers — the  collection  of  Gospels — were  possessed  of 
an  established  authority. 

8  Apol I.  c.  67. 


48 


GENUINENESS  OE  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 


direct  citations  from  these  Gospel  Memoirs  in  Justin, 
and  of  the  numerous  allusions  to  sayings  of  Christ  and 
events  in  his  life,  nearly  all  plainly  correspond  to  pas¬ 
sages  in  our  canonical  Gospels.  That  the  quotations 
are  inexact  as  to  phraseology,  is  not  a  peculiarity  of 
Justin.  He  probably  quotes  from  memory ;  and  for 
his  purpose  it  was  not  requisite  that  he  should  be 
verbally  accurate. 

Before  we  proceed  to  speak  of  his  use  of  John  in 
particular,  we  will  advert  to  the  question  which  has 
been  warmly  discussed,  whether  he  quotes  from  other 
gospel  histories  than  those  in  our  canon.  Considering 
that  the  cases  of  an  allusion  to  sayings  or  transactions 
not  recorded  in  the  canonical  Gospels,  are  so  very  few, 
and  that  of  these  not  one  is  explicitly  referred  by 
Justin  to  the  Memoirs,1  it  is  not  at  all  improbable 
that  the  source  of  his  knowledge  in  these  exceptional 
cases  was  oral  tradition.  Living  so  near  the  time  of 
the  apostles,  when,  as  we  know,  some  unrecorded  say¬ 
ings  of  Christ  and  circumstances  in  his  life  were  orally 
reported  from  one  to  another,  this  supposition  is  by 
no  means  unnatural.  Yet  as  written  narratives,  be¬ 
sides  the  four  of  our  canon,  were  extant,  and  had 
a  local  circulation — especially  the  Gospel  of  the  He- 

1  Such  a  reference  to  the  Memoirs  has  been  supposed  in  Dial  c. 
Tryph .,  c.  103  (p.  352  ed.  Otto),  but  erroneously.  Nor  is  there  a  ref¬ 
erence  to  the  Memoirs  in  Dial  c.  Tryph .,  c.  88  (p.  306  ed.  of  Otto), 
where  eypay^av  ol  dnoaroXot  avrov  refers  grammatically  only  to  the  last 
part  of  the  sentence.  There  is  no  citation  try  Justin  from  the 
Memoirs ,  which  is  not  found  in  the  canonical  Gospels. 


THE  EXTERNAL  EVIDENCE  :  JUSTIN. 


49 


brews  among  the  Ebionite  Christians — Justin  may 
have  been  acquainted  with  one  or  more  of  these, 
and  thence  derived  the  exceptional  passages  which 
we  are  considering.  That  either  of  these,  however, 
was  generally  read  in  the  churches  (as  were  the 
Memoirs  of  which  Justin  speaks)  is  extremely  im¬ 
probable  ;  for  how  could  any  Gospel  which  had  been 
thus  made  familiar  and  dear  to  a  multitude  of  Chris¬ 
tians  by  being  read  in  their  assemblies,  be  suddenly 
thrown  out  and  discarded  without  an  audible  word  of 
opposition  ?  How  can  such  an  hypothesis  stand  in 
view  of  the  fact  that  by  the  time  Justin  died  Irenaeus 
had  already  reached  his  manhood  ?  It  is  clearly  es¬ 
tablished  that  Justin  had  in  view  the  same  Gospels 
which  we  read  in  our  Bibles,  although,  as  we  have 
said,  he  may  have  been  acquainted  with  other  less 
trustworthy  narratives  of  the  life  of  Christ.1  If  we 
suppose,  as  there  is  no  necessity  for  doing,  that  he  de¬ 
rived  a  few  facts  or  sayings  from  such  a  source,  it  by 
no  means  follows  that  he  put  these  writings  on  a  level 
with  the  authoritative  Memoirs — the  dTtojuvrjjuovtv- 
f,iara.  Be  it  observed,  that  in  the  multitude  of  his 

1  That  by  the  a-noiiv-qnovivixara  Justin  had  in  mind  solely  the  four 
Gospels,  is  earnestly  maintained  by  Semisch,  and  by  Professor  Norton 
in  his  very  able  work  on  the  Genuineness  of  the  Gospels.  Bleek 
holds  that  he  had  these  mainly,  if  not  exclusively,  in  view.  Ewald, 
without  any  just  reason,  thinks  that  because  the  records  are  said  to 
emanate  from  the  apostles  and  their  followers,  he  had  reference  to 
many  such  writings,  which  were  in  his  hands.  Jahrb.  d.  Bibl.  TFm., 
VI.  60. 


4 


50 


GENUINENESS  OE  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 


allusions  to  the  evangelical  history,  those  which 
cannot  he  distinctly  traced  to  the  canonical  Gospels 
do  not  exceed  six  in  number. 

The  evidence  that  the  fourth  Gospel  formed  one 
of  Justin’s  authoritative  Records  or  Memoirs  cannot 
be  gainsaid.  In  a  long  list  of  passages  collected  from 
Justin  by  Semisch  and  other  writers,  there  is  a 
marked  resemblance  in  language  and  thought  to 
places  in  the  fourth  Gospel.1  In  regard  to  many 
of  these,  to  be  sure,  we  are  not  absolutely  obliged  to 
trace  them  to  this  source.  They  may  have  been 
derived  from  unwritten  tradition.  But  we  are  author¬ 
ized  to  find  the  origin  of  this  class  of  expressions  in 
John,  when  we  have  assured  ourselves,  from  other 
passages  which  admit  of  no  doubt,  that  Justin  made 
use  of  the  fourth  Gospel.  And  from  this  conviction 
there  is  no  escape.  We  mention  here  only  one,  but 
perhaps  the  most  obvious  and  striking,  of  the  special 
quotations  which  Justin  has  drawn  from  this  Gospel. 
Having  described  with  some  detail  the  method  of 
Christian  baptism,  Justin  adds:  “Bor  indeed  Christ 
also  said :  ‘  except  ye  be  born  again,  ye  shall  not 
enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven.’  And  that  it  is 
impossible  for  those  who  are  once  born  to  enter  into 
their  mother’s  womb,  is  plain  to  all.” 2  Here  is  a 


1  The  work  of  Semisch  to  which  we  refer — Die  Denkwurdig- 
keiten  des  Mdrtyrers  Justinus — is  a  thorough  examination  of  the  ques¬ 
tion:  What  Gospels  were  made  use  of  by  Justin? 

2  Apol.,  I.  C.  61  :  Kai-yap  6  xpiaros  ehrev'  *Av  prj  avayevvrj^rjTe^  ov  prj 
ctcreXS^re  els  rrjv  (BaoiXeiav  tojv  ovpavccv.  ^Ort  Se  /cat  aSurarov  els  tus 


THE  EXTERNAL  EVIDENCE  :  JUSTIN. 


51 


passage  so  peculiar,  so  characteristic  of  John’s  Gospel, 
that  we  are  precluded  from  attributing  it  to  any  other 
source.  Is  it  credible  that  Justin  drew  this  passage 
from  some  other  gospel,  which  suddenly  perished  and 
was  supplanted  by  that  bearing  the  name  of  John  ? 
Writers  of  the  Tubingen  school  have  suggested  that 
this,  as  well  as  other  passages  seeming  to  be  from 
John,  were  taken  by  Justin  from  the  Gospel  of  the 
Hebrews.  Aside  from  the  entire  absence  of  proof  in 
support  of  this  assertion,  all  the  information  we  have 
concerning  the  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews  warrants  the 
declaration  that  it  contained  no  such  passages.  The 
Gospel  of  the  Hebrews  bore  a  great  resemblance 
in  its  contents  to  our  Gospel  of  Matthew.  It  was  the 
product  of  a  translation  and  mutilation  of  our  Greek 
Matthew.  There  is  much  to  be  said  in  favor  of  the 
opinion,  for  which  Bleek  argues,  that  the  known  fact 
of  its  resemblance  to  Matthew  first  gave  rise  to  the 
impression  that  Matthew  originally  wrote  his  Gospel 
in  the  Hebrew  tongue.1 

fiTjrpas  tcov  TeKovacov  rovs  anal;  yevvcopevovs  (pfirjvai,  avepov  naar'iv  ean. 
There  is  no  reasonable  doubt  that  the  quotation  in  Dial.  c.  Tryph .,  c. 
88,  ovk  dpi  6  xpicrros,  tyo)  (j}(ovr]  fiowvros,  is  from  John  i.  19,  23:  ovk 
dpi  (yio  6  xptords  ....  iyio  (pwvr)  (3o(ovtos  iv  rij  iprjpw. 

1  The  occurrence  of  this  passage  relative  to  regeneration  in  the 
Pseudo-Clementine  Homilies  (Horn.  xi.  26),  with  the  same  deviations 
from  John  that  are  found  in  Justin’s  quotation,  was  made  an  argument 
to  prove  that  both  writers  must  have  taken  it  from  some  other  Gospel 
— the  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews.  But  the  additions  to  the  passage  in  the 
Homilies,  and  the  omission  of  the  part  concerning  the  impossibility 
of  a  second  physical  birth, — points  of  difference  between  Justin  and 


52 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 


The  fact  of  Justin's  acquaintance  with  John’s 
Gospel,  however,  does  not  rest  solely  upon  the  evi¬ 
dence  afforded  by  the  citation  of  isolated  passages. 


tlio  Homilies, — are  quite  as  marked  as  the  points  of  resemblance, 
which  may  be  an  accidental  coincidence.  The  deviations  in  Justin’s 
citation  from  the  original  in  John  are  easily  explained.  They  are 
chiefly  due  to  the  confusion  of  the  phraseology  of  this  passage  with 
that  of  John  iii.  5  and  Matt,  xviii.  3, — than  which  nothing  was  more 
natural.  Similar  inaccuracies,  and  from  a  similar  cause,  in  quoting 
John  iii.  3,  are  not  uncommon  now.  That  Justin  uses  the  compound 
verb  avayewdco,  is  because  he  had  found  occasion  to  use  the  same 
verb  just  before  in  the  context,  and  because  this  had  become  the  cur¬ 
rent  term  to  designate  regeneration. 

Baur  in  one  place  adduces  John  iii.  4  as  an  instance  of  the  ficti¬ 
tious  ascription  to  the  Jews,  on  the  part  of  the  author  of  this  Gospel, 
of  incredible  misunderstandings  of  the  words  of  Jesus.  If  this  be  so, 
surely  Justin  must  be  indebted  to  John  for  the  passage.  Anxious  to 
avoid  this  conclusion,  and  apparently  forgetting  what  he  had  said 
before,  Baur,  in  another  passage  of  the  same  work  affirms  that  this 
same  expression  is  borrowed  alike  by  the  author  of  John  and  by 
Justin  from  the  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews !  See  Baur’s  Kanonische 
Evangelien ,  pp.  290,  300,  compared  with  pp.  352,  353.  There  were 
two  or  three  other  citations,  however,  in  the  Homilies,  in  which  it  was 
claimed  that  the  same  deviations  are  found  as  in  corresponding  cita¬ 
tions  in  J ustin.  But  if  this  circumstance  lent  any  plausibility  to  the 
pretence  that  these  passages  in  Justin  were  drawn  from  some  other 
document  than  the  canonical  John,  this  plausibility  vanishes  and  the 
question  is  set  at  rest  by  the  publication  of  DresseFs  ed.  of  the 
Homilies.  This  edition  gives  the  concluding  portion,  not  found  in 
Cotelerius,  and  we  are  thus  furnished  (Horn.  xix.  22,  comp.  John  ix. 
2,  3)  with  an  undenied  and  undeniable  quotation  from  John.  This 
makes  it  evident  that  Horn.  iii.  52  is  a  citation  of  John  x.  9,  27,  and 
also  removes  all  doubt  as  to  the  source  whence  the  quotation  of 
John  iii.  3  was  derived.  The  similarity  of  the  Homilies  to  Justin,  in 
the  few  quotations  referred  to  above,  is  probably  accidental ;  if  not,  it 


EXTERNAL  EVIDENCE :  JUSTIN. 


53 


In  his  doctrine  of  the  Logos  and  of  the  Incarnation, 
and  in  the  terms  under  which  the  person  of  the 
Saviour  is  characterized,  are  indubitable  marks  of  a 
familiarity  with  John.  This  peculiar  type  of  thought 
and  expression  pervades  the  whole  theology  of  Justin. 
We  can  hardly  doubt  that  it  was  derived  by  him  from 
an  authoritative  source.  -  In  one  passage,  Justin  di¬ 
rectly  attributes  the  truth  of  the  Incarnation,  “  that 
Christ  became  man  by  the  Virgin,”  to  the  Memoirs.1 
Are  we  to  believe  that  this  whole  Johannean  type  of 
doctrine  was  found  in  some  unknown  Gospel,  which 
in  Justin’s  day  was  read  in  the  Christian  congregations 
in  city  and  country,  but  was  suddenly  displaced  by 
another  Gospel  having  just  the  same  doctrinal  peculi¬ 
arity;  a  change  which,  if  it  took  place  at  all,  must 
have  occurred  in  the  later  years  of  Justin’s  life,  and  in 
the  youth  of  Irenaeus  ?  And  yet  Irenaeus  knew 
nothing  of  it,  had  no  suspicion  that  the  fourth  Gos- 

simply  proves  that  Justin  was  in  the  hands  of  their  author.  This  may 
easily  be  supposed.  The  date  of  the  Homilies  is  in  the  neighbor¬ 
hood  of  170.  See  on  these  points  Meyer’s  Einl .,  s,  10.  Bleek,  s.  228. 
Semisch,  193  seq. 

1  Dial.  c.  Tryph .,  c.  105.  The  explicit  reference  to  the  Memoirs  is 
grammatically  connected  only  with  the  clause  which  we  have  cited 
above,  and  not  with  the  entire  sentence,  as  has  been  frequently  sup¬ 
posed.  Yet,  it  is  scarcely  doubtful  that  the  whole  conception  of 
Christ,  of  which  this  clause  was  a  part,  was  derived  from  the  same 
source.  “For  I  have  proved,”  says  Justin,  “  that  he  [Christ]  was  the 
only-begotten  of  the  Father  of  all  things,  being  properly  begotten 
by  Him  as  his  Word  and  Power,” — here  follows  the  clause,  with  the 
reference  to  the  Memoirs,  which  is  quoted  above. 


54 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 


pel  had  any  author  but  John,  or  that  the  fixed  and 
sacred  number  four  was  made  up  by  so  recent  an 
intruder ! 

The  value  of  this  testimony  of  Justin  is  evinced 
by  the  various  and  incongruous  hypotheses  which  have 
been  resorted  to,  for  the  purpose  of  undermining  it.1 
But  all  now  admit  (what  ought  never  to  have  been 
disputed)  that  under  the  name  of  Memoirs  he  refers  to 
no  single  Gospel  exclusively,  but  to  a  number  of 
Gospels.  It  is  admitted,  also,  that  among  them  were 
the  Gospels  of  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke.  But  the 
Memoirs  were  by  “  Apostles  and  their  Companions.” 
Besides  Matthew,  Justin’s  collection  must  necessarily 
have  embraced  one  other  apostle.  Whose  work  was 
this  but  that  of  John?  No  other  work  which 
pretended  to  emanate  from  an  apostle  can  supply  the 
vacant  place.  No  evidence  which  is  worth  considera¬ 
tion  points  to  any  other ;  no  other  ever  had  the 
currency  which  Justin  ascribes  to  the  documents  to 

1  We  have  not  thought  it  necessary  to  refute  Hilgenfeld’s  hypo¬ 
thesis,  that  one  of  Justin’s  principal  authorities  was  the  apocryphal 
Gospel  of  Peter.  (See  Hilgenfeld,  Die  Evangelien  Justin's ,  1850,  s. 
259  seq.)  This  Gospel  Hilgenfeld  assumes  to  have  been  the  basis  of 
the  canonical  Gospel  of  Mark, — a  groundless  assumption,  resting 
upon  a  misinterpretation  of  Papias,  who  refers  to  the  canonical 
Gospel  itself,  and  not  to  any  unknown  work  out  of  which  this 
Gospel  is  thought  to  have  grown.  The  idea  that  the  Gospel  of 
Peter,  a  book  so  insignificant  and  so  little  known  in  the  early  church, 
was  one  of  the  authoritative  documents  of  Justin!  The  proofs 
which  Hilgenfeld  adduces,  are,  in  our  judgment,  far-fetched  and  des¬ 
titute  of  force. 


EXTERNAL  EVIDENCE  :  JUSTIN. 


55 


which  he  refers.  When  we  find  in  Justin,  therefore, 
the  same  designation  of  the  authors  of  his  Gospels, — 

“  Apostles  and  their  Companions,” — which*  Irenaeus 
and  Tertullian  use  to  denote  the  four  canonical 
writers,  how  can  we  resist  the  conviction  that  these 
are  the  writers  to  whom  he,  as  well  as  thev,  refer  ? 
“  The  manner/’  says  Norton,  “  in  which  Justin  speaks 
of  the  character  and  authority  of  the  books  to  which 
he  appeals,  proves  these  books  to  have  been  the 
Gospels.  They  carried  with  them  the  authority  of  the 
Apostles.  They  were  those  writings  from  which  he 
and  other  Christians  derived  their  knowledge  of  the 
history  and  doctrines  of  Christ.  They  were  relied 
upon  by  him  as  primary  and  decisive  evidence  in  his 
explanations  of  the  character  of  Christianity.  They 
were  regarded  as  sacred  books.  They  were  read  in 
the  assemblies  of  Christians  on  the  Lord’s  Day,  in 
connection  with  the  Prophets  of  the  Old  Testament. 
Let  us  now  consider  the  manner  in  which  the  Gos¬ 
pels  were  regarded  by  the  contemporaries  of  Justin. 
Irenaeus  was  in  the  vigor  of  life  before  Justin’s  death; 
and  the  same  was  true  of  many  thousands  of  Chris¬ 
tians  living  when  Irenaeus  wrote.  But  he  tells  us 
that  the  four  Gospels  are  the  four  pillars  of  the 
church,  the  foundation  of  Christian  faith,  written  by 
those  who  had  first  orally  preached  the  gospel,  by 
two  apostles  and  two  companions  of  apostles.  It 
is  incredible  that  Irenaeus  and  Justin  should  have 
spoken  of  different  books.”  When  “we  find  Ire- 


56 


GENUINENESS  OE  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 


naeus,  the  contemporary  of  Justin,  ascribing  the  same 
character,  the  same  authority,  and  the  same  authors, 
as  are  ascribed  by  Justin,  to  the  Memoirs  quoted  by 
him,  which  were  called  Gospels,  there  can  be  no  rea¬ 
sonable  doubt  that  the  Memoirs  of  Justin  were  the 
Gospels  of  Irenaeus.”  1 

But  we  have  testimonies  to  the  genuineness  of 
the  fourth  Gospel  prior  even  to  Justin.  The  first  of 
these  we  have  to  mention  is  Papias,  who  flourished  in 
the  first  quarter  of  the  second  century.  He  wrote  a 
work  in  five  books  entitled  “  An  Explication  of  the 
Oracles  of  the  Lord/’  in  the  composition  of  which  he 
depended  mainly  on  unwritten  traditions  which  he 
gathered  up  in  conversation  with  those  who  had  heard 
the  apostles.  Eusebius  states  that  “  he  made  use  of 
testimonies  from  the  Eirst  Epistle  of  John.”  2  That 
this  Epistle  and  the  fourth  Gospel  are  from  the  same 
author,  has  been,  it  is  true,  called  in  question  by 
the  Tubingen  critics.  But  if  internal  evidence  has 
any  weight ,  is  ever  entitled  to  any  regard,  we  must 
conclude,  in  agreement  with  the  established,  universal 
opinion,  that  both  these  writings  have  a  common 
author.  In  style,  in  language,  in  spirit,  in  tone, 
they  have  the  closest  resemblance  ;  and  to  ascribe  this 
resemblance  in  either  case  to  the  imitation  of  a  coun¬ 
terfeiter,  is  to  give  him  credit  for  an  unequalled 


1  Gen.  of  the  Gospels ,  Vol.  I.  pp.  237-239. 

2  Euseb.,  Lib.  III.  c.  39. 


EXTERNAL  EVIDENCE. 


57 


refinement  of  cunning.1  So  that  the  testimony  of 
Papias  to  the  first  Epistle  is  likewise  evidence  of  the 
genuineness  of  the  Gospel.  The  attempt  is  made, 
indeed,  to  invalidate  this  testimony  by  the  suggestion 
that  possibly  Eusebius  gives,  in  this  instance,  simply 
an  inference  of  his  own  from  passages  in  Papias 
which  that  author  himself  may  not  have  referred 
to  John.  But  this  suggestion  rests  upon  no  proof, 
and  has  not  the  force  of  a  probability,  in  view  of  the 
explicit  assertion  of  Eusebius.  The  Tubingen  critics 
make  much  of  the  circumstance  that  Papias  is  not 
said  by  Eusebius  to  have  made  use  of  John’s  Gospel ; 
but  until  we  know  what  particular  end  Papias  had  in 
view  in  his  allusions  to  New  Testament  books,  this 
silence  is  of  no  weight.  That  he  did  acknowledge 
the  Eirst  Epistle  of  John,  demonstrates  that  he  also 
knew  and  acknowledged  the  Gospel.  Turning  to  the 
Apostolic  Eathers,  we  find  not  a  few  expressions, 
especially  in  the  Ignatian  Epistles,  which  remind  us 
of  passages  peculiar  to  John ;  but  in  general  we 
cannot  be  certain  that  these  expressions  were  not 
drawn  from  oral  tradition.  Yet  in  some  cases  they 
are  much  more  naturally  attributed  to  the  fourth 
Gospel,  and  in  one  instance  this  can  hardly  be 
avoided.  Polycarp,  in  his  epistle  to  the  Philippians, 
says :  “  for  every  one  who  does  not  confess  that  Jesus 

1  On  the  certainty  that  the  first  Epistle  was  written  by  the 
author  of  the  Gospel,  see  De  Wette’s  Einl.  in  das  N~.  Testament , 

§  177  a. 


58 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 


Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh  is  antichrist.”1  The 
resemblance  of  language  to  1  John  iv.  3  is  striking ; 
but  a  thought  which  in  that  form  is  so  peculiar  to 
this  canonical  epistle,  being,  as  it  were,  the  core  of 
the  type  of  doctrine  which  it  presents,  can  hardly, 
when  found  in  Polycarp,  an  immediate  pupil  of  John, 
be  referred  to  any  other  author.2  Another  and  still 
earlier  testimony  is  attached  to  the  fourth  Gospel 
itself  (John  xxi.  24).  This  passage  purports  to  come 
from  another  hand  than  that  of  the  author,  of  whom 
it  says :  “  we  know  that  his  testimony  is  true.”  It 
has  been  attached  to  the  Gospel,  as  far  as  we  are  able 
to  determine,  from  the  time  when  it  was  first  put 
in  circulation.  If  it  be  not  part  and  parcel  of  a 
flagrant  imposition,  it  proves  the  work  to  have  been 
written  by  the  beloved  disciple. 

An  important  part  of  the  external  evidence  for 
the  genuineness  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  is  the  tacit 
or  express  acknowledgment  of  the  fact  by  the  various 
heretical  parties  of  the  second  century.  Significant, 
in  connection  with  this  point,  is  the  circumstance  that 
the  Artemonites,  the  party  of  Unitarians  who  came 
forward  in  Rome  near  the  end  of  the  second  century, 
did  not  think  of  disputing  the  apostolical  origin 
of  that  Gospel  to  which  their  opponents  were  indebted 
for  their  strongest  weapons.  Had  the  fourth  Gospel 


1  7 tus  yap  os 
dvTLXpiarTos  icrri. 


dv  pr)  opoXoyfj  ’bjcrovv  XpLcrrdv  iv  aap<\  iXrjXv’Sivai 

Ad  Phil.  7. 


3  Meyer’s  ffinl.,  s.  5. 


EXTERNAL  EVIDENCE  :  MARCION. 


59 


first  been  heard  of  within  the  lifetime  of  the  old  men 
then  living  in  the  Roman  church,  we  should  look  for 
an  attack  from  this  Unitarian  party,  who  did  not  lack 
ability,  upon  its  authority.  But  no  doubt  of  this 
kind  was  expressed.  Prom  the  disputes  which  agi¬ 
tated  the  middle  part  of  the  century,  however,  the 
argument  we  have  to  present  is  mainly  derived.  If 
the  fourth  Gospel  was  acknowledged  to  be  the  work 
of  John  by  Marcion,  the  Valentinian  Gnostics  as 
well  as  their  opponents,  and  at  the  epoch  of  the 
Montanistic  controversy,  the  most  skeptical  must  give 
up  the  attempt  to  bring  down  into  the  second  or 
third  quarter  of  the  second  century  the  date  of  its 
authorship. 

We  begin  with  Marcion.  Marcion  was  a  native  of 
Pontus,  and  came  to  Rome  about  the  year  130.  In 
his  enthusiastic  and  one-sided  attachment  to  Paul’s 
doctrine,  he  exaggerated  the  contrast  of  law  and 
gospel  into  an  absolute  repugnance  and  contrariety, 
rejected  the  Old  Testament,  regarding  the  God  of 
the  Old  Testament  as  an  inferior  Divinity,  hostile  to 
the  Supreme  Being,  and  consequently  was  led  to  make 
up  a  canon  of  New  Testament  writings  to  suit 
himself.  His  Gospel,  as  the  church  Bathers  testify, 
was  a  mutilated  copy  of  Luke,  so  altered  as  to  answer 
to  his  peculiar  tenets.  The  priority  of  our  Luke 
to  Marcion’s  Gospel  is  now  generally  allowed,  even 
by  the  Tubingen  critics  who  had  previously  taken  the 
opposite  ground.  There  is,  indeed,  no  room  for  doubt 


60 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 


in  reference  to  this  fact.  Not  only  is  Marcion  known 
to  have  altered  the  Pauline  Epistles  to  conform  them 
to  his  opinions,  but  the  fragments  of  his  Gospel 
which  have  been  preserved,  are  plainly  the  product  of 
an  alteration  of  corresponding  passages  in  our  third 
Gospel.  But  our  present  inquiry  relates  to  John. 
Was  Marcion  acquainted  with  the  fourth  Gospel? 
The  negative  has  been  stoutly  maintained  by  the 
school  of  Baur,  in  opposition,  however,  to  decided 
proof.  We  learn  from  Tertullian  that  Marcion  re¬ 
jected  John’s  Gospel — a  fact  which  implies  its  exist¬ 
ence  and  general  reception ;  and  Tertullian  explains 
his  motive  in  this  procedure.  Tertullian  says  :  “  But 
Marcion  having  got  the  Epistle  of  Paul  to  the 
Galatians,  who  blames  the  apostles  themselves,  as  not 
walking  uprightly,  according  to  the  truth  of  the 
gospel,  and  also  charges  some  false  apostles  with  per¬ 
verting  the  gospel  of  Christ,  sets  himself  to  iceaken  the 
credit  of  those  Gospels  which  are  truly  such ,  and  are 
published  under  the  name  of  apostles,  or  likewise  of 
apostolical  men.” 1  That  is  to  say,  conceiving,  like  the 

1  Sed  enim  Marcion  nactus  epistolam  Panli  ad  Galatas,  etiam  ipsos 
apostolos  suggillantis  ut  non  recto  pede  incedentes  ad  veritatem 
evangelii,  simul  et  accusantis  pseudapostolos  quosdam  pervertentes 
evangelium  Christi,  connititur  ad  destrnendura  statum  eorum  evange- 
liorum  quae  propria  et  sub  apostolorum  nomine  eduntur,  vel  etiam 
apostoiicorum,  ut  scilicet  fidem,  quam  illis  adimit,  suo  conferat.  Adv. 
Marcion .,  Lib.  IY.  c.  3.  This  accounts  for  bis  not  selecting  John’s 
Gospel  instead  of  Luke.  His  zeal  for  Paul,  which  was  attended  with 
hostility  to  the  other  Apostles,  was  his  prime  characteristic. 


EXTERNAL  EVIDENCE :  MARCION. 


61 


modern  school  of  Baur,  that  there  was  a  hostility 
between  Peter,  James,  and  John  on  the  one  hand, 
and  Paul  on  the  other,  and  making  himself  a  partisan 
of  Paul,  he  rejected  everything  that  came  from 
them.  Tertullian  makes  it  clear  that  by  “  the  Gos¬ 
pels  published  under  the  name  of  apostles  or  likewise 
of  apostolical  men,”  he  intends  the  four  of  our  canon.1 
Hence  the  Gospels  which  he  says  were  rejected 
by  Marcion  must  be  Matthew,  Mark,  and  John. 
Again,  Tertullian,  speaking  of  the  adoption  by  Mar¬ 
cion  of  Luke’s  Gospel  alone,  says :  “  Now,  since  it  is 
known  that  these  (Matthew,  Mark,  and  John)  have 
also  (as  well  as  Luke)  been  in  the  churches,  why  has 
Marcion  not  laid  hands  on  these  also,  to  be  corrected 
if  they  were  corrupt,  or  received  if  incorrupt  ?  ” 2 
Tertullian  would  convict  Marcion  of  an  inconsistency 
in  laying  aside  the  other  Gospels,3  not  pretending 
to  purge  them  of  fancied  corruptions,  and  yet  not 
receiving  them.  Once  more,  in  regard  to  a  certain 
opinion  of  Marcion,  Tertullian  says,  addressing  Mar¬ 
cion,  that  if  he  did  not  reject  some  and  corrupt  others 
of  the  scriptures  which  contradict  his  opinion,  the 

1  Adv.  Marcion .,  Lib  .IV.  c.  2.  “  Denique  nobis  fidem  ex  apostolis 
Ioannes  et  Matthaeus  insinnant,  ex  apostolicis  Lucas  et  Marcus  in- 
staurant,”  etc. 

2  Adv.  Marcion .,  Lib.  IV.  c.  5.  “Igitur  dum  constet  baec  quoque 
apud  ecclesias  fuisse,  cur  non  baec  quoque  Marcion  attigit  aut  ernen- 
danda,  si  adulterata,  aut  agnoscenda,  si  integra  ?”  etc. 

8  “  Quod  omissis  eis  Lucae  potius  institerit.”  Ibid. 


62 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 


Gospel  of  John  would  convict  him  of  error.1  The 
correctness  of  Tertullian  in  these  statements  has  been 
impeached,  but  he  had  taken  pains  to  inform  himself 
concerning  the  life  and  opinions  of  Marcion,  and  there 
is  no  good  ground  for  charging  him  here  with  error. 
His  accuracy  is  confirmed  by  the  explanation  he  gives 
of  the  origin  of  Marcion’s  hostility  to  the  apostles,  as 
proceeding  from  his  wrong  view  of  the  passage  in 
Galatians.  We  must  conclude,  therefore,  that  when 
Marcion  brought  forward  his  doctrine,  the  fourth 
Gospel  was  extant,  the  acknowledged  work  of  John. 

The  general  reception  of  John  as  an  apostolic 
work  preceded  the  Yalentinian  Gnosticism.  Valen¬ 
tinus,  the  author  of  the  most  vast  and  complete  of 
all  the  fabrics  of  Gnostic  speculation,  came  to  Rome 
about  the  year  140.  That  the  Gospel  of  John  was 
admitted  to  be  genuine,  and  used  as  such,  by  his 
party,  is  well  known.  Irenaeus  speaks  of  the  Valen- 
tinians  as  making  the  most  abundant  use  of  John’s 
Gospel :  eo  quod  est  secundum  Johannem  plenissime 
utentes.2 3  Heracleon,  one  of  the  followers  of  Valen¬ 
tinus,  wrote  a  commentary  upon  John’s  Gospel,  from 
which  Origen  in  his  work  upon  John  frequently 


1  “  Si  scripturas  opinioni  tuae  resistentes  non  de  industria  alias  re- 
iecisses,  alias  corrupisses,  confudisset  te  in  hac  specie  evangelium 
Ioannis,”  etc.  De  Came  Christi ,  c.  3.  For  other  passages  to  the  same 

effect  from  Irenaeus  and  Tertullian,  see  De  Wette’s  Einl.  in  d.  W.  T. 
§  72  c.  Anm,  d. 

3  Ado.  Haer .,  Lib.  III.  c.  11.  §  7. 


EXTERNAL  EVIDENCE  :  VALENTINE. 


63 


quotes.1  Ptolemaeus,  another  follower,  expressly 
designates  the  Prologue  of  John  as  the  work  of  the 
apostle,  and  puts  his  own  forced  explanation  upon 
its  contents.2  The  precise  date  of  Heracleon  and 
Ptolemaeus  we  cannot  determine,  but  they  must 
have  written  not  far  from  the  middle  of  the  century. 
But  did  Valentinus  himself  know  and  acknowledge 
the  fourth  Gospel  as  the  work  of  John?  This  we 
might  infer  with  great  probability  from  its  accept¬ 
ance  by  Heracleon  and  his  other  followers.  We 
should  draw  the  same  conclusion  from  the  silence 
of  Irenaeus  as  to  any  rejection  of  John’s  Gospel  by 
Valentinus,  and  from  his  statement  as  to  the  use 
of  it  by  the  school  in  general.  Moreover,  Tertullian 
contrasts  Valentinus  and  Marcion  in  this  very  partic¬ 
ular,  that  whereas  the  latter  rejected  the  Scriptures, 
the  former  built  up  his  system  upon  perverse  inter- 


1  The  passages  in  Heracleon  referred  to  by  Origen  are  collected 
in  Grabe’s  Spicilegium ,  Yol.  II.,  and  in  Stieren’s  ed.  of  Irenaeus,  I. 
938-971. 

2  Epist.  ad  Floram ,  c.  1,  ap.  Epiph.  Haer .,  xxxiii.  3.  See  Grabe’s 
Spicilegium ,  II.  70,  2d  ed.,  or  Stieren’s  Irenaeus ,  I.  924. 

The  work  which  passes  under  the  name  of  Excerpta  Theodoti ,  or 
Doctrina  Orientalis ,  a  compilation  from  the  writings  of  Theodotus  and 
other  Gnostics  of  the  second  century,  contains  numerous  extracts  from 
one  or  more  writers  of  the  Yalentinian  school,  in  which  the  Gospel 
of  John  is  quoted  and  commented  upon  as  the  work  of  the  apostle. 
See  particularly  cc.  6,  7.  These  Excerpta  are  commonly  printed  with 
the  works  of  Clement  of  Alexandria;  they  are  also  found  in  Fabri- 
cius,  Bill.  Graeca ,  Yol.  Y.,  and  in  Bunsen’s  Analecta  Ante-Nicaena , 
Yol.  I. 


64 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 


pretation.  Valentinus,  he  says,  did  not  adjust  the 
Scriptures  to  his  material — his  doctrine — but  his 
material  to  the  Scriptures.1  Marcion  made  havoc 
of  the  Scriptures;  Valentinus  autem  pep ercit.  And 
Tertullian  says,  directly,  that  Valentinus  makes  use 
of  the  whole  instrument,  i.  e.  canonical  Gospels. 
Tertullian’s  phraseology  has  been  sometimes  errone¬ 
ously  supposed  to  indicate  doubt  upon  this  point. 
He  has  been  translated  as  follows :  “for  if  Valentinus 
appears  (videtur)  to  make  use  of  the  entire  instrument 
(i.  e.  our  Scriptures),  he  has  done  violence  to  the 
truth  with  a  not  less  artful  spirit  than  Marcion/’2 
Were  this  the  exact  sense  of  the  passage,  the  videtur 
might  naturally  be  considered  the  concession  of  an 
adversary,  Tertullian  not  being  able  to  charge  his 
opponent  with  the  actual  rejection  of  any  of  the 
Gospels,  however  tempted  by  polemical  feeling  to 
throw  out  such  an  imputation.  But  the  term  videri 
is  frequently  used  in  the  writings  of  Tertullian,  not 
in  the  sense  of  “  seem,”  but  “  to  be  seen,”  “  to  be 
fully  apparent  ;  ”  and  such  we  are  persuaded  is  its 
meaning  in  the  present  passage.3  But  aside  from 

x“  Valentinus  autem  pepercit,  quoniam  non  ad  materiam  scrip- 

turas  excogitavit . auferens  proprietates  singulorum  quoque 

verborum.”  De  Praescript.  Raeret .,  c.  38. 

2  “Neque  enirn  si  Valentinus  integro  instrumento  uti  videtur, 
non  callidiore  ingenio  quam  Marcion  manus  intulit  veritati.”  Be 
Praescript .,  c.  38. 

8  Comp.  Tert.  Ado.  Prax .,  c.  26,  29 ;  Adv.  Marc.,  iv.  2  ;  De  Orat ., 
c.  21 ;  Apol .,  o.  19 ;  Adv.  Jud .,  c.  5,  quoted  from  Is.  i.  12. 


EXTERNAL  EVIDENCE  :  VALENTINE. 


65 


this  evidence,  we  are  furnished  with  direct  proof  of 
the  fact  that  Valentinus  used  and  acknowledged 
the  Gospel  of  John,  through  the  lately -found  work  of 
Hippolytus.  Hippolytus  wrote  the  “  Refutation  of 
all  Heresies  ”  in  the  earlier  part  of  the  third  century. 
He  devotes  considerable  space  to  the  systems  of 
Valentinus  and  the  Valentinians,  which  he  traces  to 
the  mathematical  speculations  of  Pythagoras  and 
Plato.  In  the  course  of  his  discussion,  referring  to 
Valentinus,  he  writes  as  follows :  “  All  the  prophets 
and  the  law  spoke  from  the  demiurg,  a  foolish  god, 
he  says — fools,  knowing  nothing.  On  this  account 
it  is,  he  (Valentinus)  says,  that  the  Saviour  says: 
‘  all  that  came  before  me  are  thieves  and  robbers.’  ”  1 
The  passage  is  obviously  taken  from  John  x.  8. 
The  pretension  of  the  Tubingen  critics  that  the 
author  here  ascribes  to  the  master  what  belongs  to 
his  pupils,  is  improbable ;  since  Hippolytus,  while 
coupling  Valentinus  and  his  followers  together  in 
cases  where  their  tenets  agree,  knows  how  carefully 
to  distinguish  the  different  phases  of  belief  in  the 
schools.  The  peculiarities  of  the  Italian  Valentin¬ 
ians,  Heracleon  and  Ptolemaeus,  of  the  oriental 
Valentinians,  Axionikus  and  Ardesianes,  and  the 
special  opinions  of  other  individuals  of  the  party, 
are  definitely  characterized.  We  have  in  their  dis¬ 
position  of  this  case  a  specimen  of  the  method  of 


1  Hippolytus  (Duncker  and  Sclmeidewin’s  ed.),  Lib.  VI.  c.  35. 
5 


66 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 


reasoning  adopted  by  Banr  and  his  followers.  Hip- 
poly  tus,  we  are  told,  may  have  attributed  to  Valen¬ 
tinus  what  belongs  only  to  his  pupils.  Granted, 
he  may  have  done  so.  The  supposition  is  possible. 
But  what  is  the  evidence  that  in  this  instance  he 
did  so?  We  are  to  assume  that  he  is  right  until 
he  is  proved  to  be  wrong.  We  are  not  arguing 
about  what  is  possible  or  impossible ;  but  we  are 
discussing  points  where  probable  reasoning  alone  is 
applicable.  So,  these  critics  tell  us  it  is  possible 
that  Polycarp  quoted  an  anonymous  sentence  current 
at  the  time,  which  is  also  taken  up  into  the  first 
epistle  bearing  the  name  of  John.  It  is  possible 
that  this  or  that  writer  drew  his  passage  from  some 
lost  apocryphal  work.  The  possibility  we  grant, 
for  in  these  matters  demonstration  is  of  course  pre¬ 
cluded.  But  the  suggestion  of  a  mere  possibility 
on  the  opposite  side  against  a  presumptive,  natural, 
and  probable  inference,,  cannot  pass  for  argument. 

When  we  look  at  the  interior  structure  of  the 
system  of  Valentinus,  we  find  that  the  characteristic 
terms  employed  by  John  are  wrought  into  it,  some 
of  them  being  attached  as  names  to  the  aeons  which, 
in  a  long  series  of  pairs,  constitute  the  celestial 
hierarchy.  Among  these  pairs  are  such  as  povoytvi\g 
and  dhf]ibtuc,  Xoyog  and  £corj.  The  artificial  and 
fantastic  scheme  of  Valentinus,  so  in  contrast  with 
the  simplicity  of  John,  wears  the  character  of  a 
copy  and  caricature  of  the  latter.  That  it  has  this 


EXTERNAL  EVIDENCE  :  BASILIDES. 


67 


relation  to  John  we  cannot,  to  be  sure,  demonstrate  ; 
for  it  may  be  contended  that  both  the  Gnostic  and 
the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel  took  up  current 
terms  and  conceptions,  each  writer  applying  them 
to  suit  his  own  purpose.  But  the  freshness  and 
apparent  originality  of  John’s  use  of  this  language, 
not  to  speak  of  the  other  proofs  in  the  case,  are 
decidedly  against  this  theory  of  Baur.  When  we 
bring  together  all  the  items  of  evidence  which  bear 
on  the  point,  we  feel  warranted  to  conclude  with 
confidence  that  not  only  Ptolemaeus  and  the  other 
disciples  of  Valentinus,  but  also  their  master,  alike 
with  his  opponents,  acknowledge  the  apostolic  author¬ 
ship  of  the  Gospel.1  Through  Hippolytus  we  are 
* 

provided  with  another  most  important  witness  in  the 
person  of  Basilides,  the  other  prominent  Gnostic 
leader,  who  taught  at  Alexandria  in  the  second  quar¬ 
ter  of  the  second  century.  Among  the  proof-texts 
which  Hippolytus  states  that  Basilides  employed, 
are  John  i.  9  :  “This  was  the  true  light  that  lighteth 
every  man  that  cometh  into  the  world;”  and  John 
ii.  4  :  “  My  hour  is  not  yet  come.”  2  In  the  passage 
in  Hippolytus  containing  these  quotations  ascribed 
to  Basilides,  and  in  the  closest  connection  with  them, 
stand  his  essential  principles  and  characteristic  ex¬ 
pressions  ;  so  that  the  suggestion  of  a  confounding 
of  master  and  pupils  on  the  part  of  Hippolytus  has 


1  See  Schneider,  s.  35. 


2  Hippol.,  Lib.  VII.  cc.  22,  27. 


68 


GENUINENESS  OE  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 


not  the  shadow  of  a  support.  In  connection  with 
this  piece  of  evidence,  we  may  advert  to  the  state¬ 
ment  of  Agrippa  Castor,  a  contemporary  of  Basilides, 
that  he  wrote  “  twenty-four  books  on  the  Gospel.”1 
It  has  been  rendered  highly  probable  that  this  denotes 
a  commentary  on  the  four  Gospels.2  The  same 
expression — “  the  Gospel  ” — it  will  be  remembered, 
is  used  by  Justin  Martyr,  as  well  as  by  the  Fathers 
subsequent  to  him,  for  the  Gospels  collectively. 

How  widely  extended  was  the  knowledge  and 
use  of  the  fourth  Gospel  among  the  heretics  of  the 
second  century,  is  further  illustrated  by  the  numerous 
quotations  that  were  made  from  it  by  the  Ophites 
or  Naasseni,  and  the  Peratae,  which  are  preserved 
by  Hippolytus.3 

We  have  to  touch  upon  one  other  movement  in 
the  second  century,  the  controversies  connected  with 
Montanism.  The  main  features  of  Montanism  were 
the  Chiliasm,  or  expectation  of  the  Saviour’s  millennial 
reign  and  speedy  advent,  and  the  prophecy  or  ecstatic 
inspiration.  In  the  millennial  doctrine,  as  well  as 
in  the  belief  in  the  continued  miraculous  gifts  of 
the  Spirit,  there  is  a  striking  resemblance  between 
the  Montanists  and  the  followers  of  Edward  Irving. 
We  cannot  say  how  far  Montanism  professed  to 
found  itself  on  John’s  Gospel,  because  we  know  not 

1  Euseb.,  Lib.  IY.  c.  7. 

2  See  Norton’s  Gen.  of  the  Gospels ,  Vol.  III.  p  238. 

3  Hippol.,  Lib.  Y.  cc.  7,  8,  9,  12,  16,  17. 


EXTERNAL  EVIDENCE. 


69 


precisely  when  in  the  development  of  the  sect  the 
claim  to  the  presence  of  the  Paraclete,  in  this  form, 
was  set  up.  We  allude  to  Montanism,  therefore,  to 
speak  of  a  certain  party  that  opposed  it.  Irenaeus 
speaks  of  some  who,  in  their  opposition  to  the  re¬ 
cent  effusions  of  the  Divine  Spirit  upon  men,  do  not 
accept  of  the  Gospel  of  John,  “  in  which  the  Lord 
promised  that  he  would  send  the  Paraclete,  but  at 
the  same  time  reject  both  the  Gospel  and  the  pro¬ 
phetic  Spirit/5 1  Shortly  before,  he  had  spoken  of 
some  who  would  fain  exhibit  themselves  in  the 
character  of  searchers  for  truth,  possibly  referring 
to  this  same  class.  Epiphanius  describes  a  class  of 
zealous  opponents  of  Montanism,  who  were  probably 
the  same  mentioned  by  Irenaeus.  Epiphanius  styles 
them  Alogi,  as  opposing  the  Logos  Gospel.  They 
maintained  that  the  Gospel  of  John  did  not  agree 
with  the  other  three  Gospels,  in  regard  to  various 
points  in  the  life  of  Christ, — as  in  the  omission  of 
the  forty  days’  temptation,  and  in  the  number  of 
passovers  he  is  said  to  have  kept.2  Their  opposition, 

1  Irenaeus,  Lib.  III.  11.  9.  Let  the  reader  mark  that  this  is  the 
only  allusion  to  a  rejection  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  as  not  by  John, 
which  we  find  in  any  writer  before  the  latter  part  of  the  fourth  cen¬ 
tury.  The  party  to  which  Irenaeus  refers  consisted  probably  of  a 
few  eccentric  individuals,  who  attracted  no  attention,  and  none  of 
whose  names  are  preserved.  Moreover,  as  we  have  remarked  above, 
any  slight  weight  which  their  opposition  could  be  conceived  to  have, 
is  neutralized  by  their  equal  opposition  to  the  Apocalypse. 

2  For  a  full  explication  of  the  character  of  the  Alogi  as  they  are  de¬ 
scribed  by  Epiphanius  and  Irenaeus,  see  Schneider,  s.  38  et  seq. 


70 


GENUINENESS  OE  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 


however,  is  really  an  argument  for  the  genuineness 
of  John.  It  shows  the  general  acknowledgment  of 
this  Gospel  at  the  time  when  they  made  their  opposi¬ 
tion,  which  was  not  long  after  the  middle  of  the 
second  century.  It  proves  that  their  opponents,  the 
Montanists,  and  the  Church  generally,  received  it. 
Moreover,  their  groundless  ascription  of  the  Gospel 
to  Cerinthus  is  a  valuable  testimony  from  them  to 
its  age ;  for  Cerinthus  was  a  contemporary  of  John. 
Baur’s  unfounded  praise  of  the  critical  spirit  of  this 
insignificant  party,  is  strange,  considering  that  they 
also  rejected  the  Apocalypse,  which  he  holds  to  be 
the  genuine  work  of  John,  and  that  they  ascribed 
both  the  Apocalypse  and  the  Gospel  to  the  same 
author.  It  seems  probable  that  the  Alogi  were  led  by 
their  strong  hostility  to  the  Montanistic  enthusiasm  to 
dislike  the  fourth  Gospel  when  Montanism  claimed  to 
find  a  warrant  for  itself  in  the  promise  of  the  Spirit, 
and  on  this  doctrinal  ground,  making  use  also  of  the 
apparent  historical  differences  between  the  fourth  Gos¬ 
pel  and  the  other  three,  they  rejected  it.  Precisely 
what  was  the  nature  and  reason  of  their  opposition 
to  the  doctrine  of  the  Logos  we  know  not ;  but  their 
feeling  on  this  subject  accords  with  their  rationalistic 
turn  of  mind.  The  circumstances  of  their  opposition, 
as  we  see,  are  a  strong  indirect  argument  for  the  an¬ 
tiquity  and  genuineness  of  the  Gospel  they  rejected. 1 


:  We  are  also  entitled  to  cite  Celsus  as  a  witness  to  the  fourth 


EXTERNAL  EVIDENCE. 


11 


Before  we  leave  this  topic — the  use  of  the  fourth 
Gospel  by  the  heretics — we  ask  our  readers  to  con¬ 
sider  the  full  weight  of  the  argument  that  is  founded 
upon  it.  The  great  doctrinal  battle  of  the  Church 
in  the  second  century  was  with  Gnosticism.  The 
struggle  with  this  first  heresy  of  a  Gentile  origin 
had  its  beginnings  early.  The  germs  of  it  are  dis¬ 
tinctly  perceived  in  the  Apostolic  Age.  At  the 
middle  of  the  second  century,  the  conflict  with  these 
elaborate  systems  of  error  was  raging.  By  Justin, 
the  Yalentinians,  the  Basilideans,  the  Marcionites 
(followers  either  of  Marcus  or  of  Marcion),  and 
other  Gnostic  sects,  are  denounced  as  warmly  as  by 

Gospel.  The  date  of  Celsus  is  about  the  middle  of  the  second  cen¬ 
tury.  He  professed  to  derive  his  statements  concerning  the  evan¬ 
gelical  history  from  the  writings  of  the  disciples  of  Christ.  The 
great  body  of  his  statements  are  plainly  founded  on  passages  in  our 
canonical  Gospels,  especially  in  Matthew.  But  Celsus  speaks  of 
Christ  being  called  by  his  disciples  the  Word.  He  speaks  of  the 
blood  which  flowed  from  the  body  of  Jesus, — a  circumstance  pecu¬ 
liar  to  John’s  narrative.  He  also  says:  “To  the  sepulchre  of  Jesus 
there  came  two  angels,  as  is  said  by  some,  or,  as  by  others,  one 
only.”  Matthew  and  Mark  mention  one  only,  Luke  and  John  two. 
Again,  Celsus  gives  the  Christian  narrative  of  the  Resurrection  as 
containing  the  fact  that  Christ,  “after  he  was  dead,  arose,  and 
showed  the  marks  of  his  punishment,  and  how  his  hands  had  been 
pierced.”  This  circumstance  is  recorded  only  in  John  xx.  27.  It  is 
indeed  “  possible,”  as  Meyer  suggests,  that  Celsus  found  these  things 
in  apocryphal  gospels,  but  the  probability  is  the  other  way.  Meyer 
should  not  have  so  lightly  valued  the  testimony  afforded  by  Celsus. 
These  passages  from  Origen  against  Celsus  maybe  found  in  Lardner, 
Vol.  VII.  pp.  220,  221  and  239.  To  the  testimony  of  the  Clementine 
Homilies  we  have  before  adverted. 


72 


GENUINENESS  OE  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 


Irenaeus  and  his  contemporaries.1  And  by  both 
of  the  parties  in  this  wide-spread  conflict,  by  the 
Gnostics  and  the  church  theologians,  the  fourth 
Gospel  is  accepted  as  the  work  of  John,  without  a 
lisp  of  opposition  or  of  doubt.  If  the  fourth  Gospel 
originated  as  the  Tubingen  school  pretend,  it  ap¬ 
peared  in  the  midst  of  this  distracted  period ;  it  was 
cast  into  the  midst  of  this  tumult  of  controversy. 
With  what  incredible  skill  must  this  anonymous 
wTriter  have  proceeded,  to  be  able  to  frame  a  system 
which  should  not  immediately  excite  hostility  and 
cause  his  false  pretensions  to  be  challenged  !  How 
can  we  suppose  that  a  book,  appearing  for  the  first 
time  at  such  an  epoch,  having  of  necessity  so  close  a 
bearing  on  the  great  themes  of  controversy,  and 
claiming  to  be  the  production  of  an  apostle,  would 
encounter  no  denial?  The  acknowledgment  of  this 
Gospel,  both  by  the  Gnostic  who  wTas  obliged  to 
pervert  its  teachings  through  forced  interpretations, 
and  by  the  orthodox  theologian,  furnishes  an  irresisti¬ 
ble  argument  for  its  genuineness. 

Thus  far  we  have  dealt,  for  the  most  part,  with 
those  isolated  passages  of  the  early  writers  wherein 
the  existence  and  authoritative  standing  of  John’s 
Gospel  are  presupposed.  Not  all  these  separate 
items  of  evidence  are  of  equal  strength.  Together 
they  constitute  an  irrefragable  argument.  And  yet 


1  Dial.  c.  Tryph .,  c.  32. 


EXTERNAL  EVIDENCE  :  TRADITION. 


73 


the  main,  m os t* convincing  argument  for  the  genuine¬ 
ness  of  this  Gospel,  is  drawn  from  the  moral  impossi¬ 
bility  of  discrediting,  in  such  a  case,  the  tradition 
of  the  early  Church.  Let  us  consider  for  a  moment 
the  character  of  this  argument. 

We  begin  with  observing  that,  on  matters  of 
fact  in  which  men  are  interested,  and  to  which, 
therefore,  their  attention  is  drawn,  and  in  regard  to 
which  there  are  no  causes  strongly  operating  to  blind 
the  judgment,  the  evidence  of  tradition  is,  within 
reasonable  limits  of  time,  conclusive.  An  individual 
may  perpetuate  his  testimony  through  the  instru¬ 
mentality  of  one  who  long  survives  him.  The  testi¬ 
mony  of  a  generation  may  in  like  manner  be  trans¬ 
mitted  to,  and  through,  the  generation  that  comes 
after.  Next  to  the  testimony  of  one’s  own  senses 
is  the  testimony  of  another  person  whom  we  know  to 
be  trustworthy.  And  where,  instead  of  one  individ¬ 
ual  handing  over  his  knowledge  to  a  single  successor, 
there  is  a  multitude  holding  this  relation  to  an  equal 
or  greater  number  after  them,  the  force  of  this  kind 
of  evidence  is  proportion  ably  augmented.  Moreover, 
the  several  generations  do  not  pass  away,  like  the 
successive  platoons  of  a  marching  army,  but  the 
young  and  the  old,  the  youth  and  octogenarian,  are 
found  together  in  every  community;  so  that  upon 
any  transaction  of  public  importance  that  has  occurred 
during  a  long  period  in  the  past,  witnesses  are 
always  at  hand  who  can  either  speak  from  personal 


/ 


74  GENUINENESS  OE  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 

knowledge  or  from  testimony  directly  -given  them  by 
individuals  with  whom  they  were  in  early  life  familiar. 

Few  persons  who  have  not  specially  attended  to 
the  subject,  are  aware  how  long  a  period  is  some¬ 
times  covered  by  a  very  few  links  of  traditional  testi¬ 
mony.  Lord  Campbell,  in  his  Lives  of  the  Chancel¬ 
lors,  remarks  of  himself,  that  he  had  seen  a  person 
who  had  seen  a  spectator  of  the  execution  of  Charles 
I.,  in  1649.  A  single  link  separated  Lord  Campbell 
from  the  eyewitness  of  an  event  occurring  upwards  of 
two  hundred  years  before.  Suppose  this  interven¬ 
ing  witness  to  be  known  by  Lord  Campbell  to  be  a 
discriminating  and  trustworthy  person,  and  we  have 
testimony  that  is  fully  credible.  We  borrow  two 
examples  from  Mr.  Palfrey’s  excellent  History  of 
New  England.  The  first  relates  to  the  preservation 
of  the  knowledge  of  the  landing-place  of  the  Pilgrims. 
Plymouth  Rock,  says  the  Historian,  “is  now  imbedded 
in  a  wharf.  When  this  was  about  to  be  built,  in 
1741,  Elder  Thomas  Eaunce,  then  ninety-one  years 
old,  came  to  visit  the  rock,  and  to  remonstrate  against 
its  being  exposed  to  injury;  and  he  repeated  what 
he  had  heard  of  it  from  the  first  planters.  Elder 
Eaunce’s  testimony  was  transmitted  through  Mrs. 
White,  who  died  in  1810,  ninety-five  years  old,  and 
Deacon  Ephraim  Spooner,  who  died  in  1818,  at  the 
age  of  eighty-three.” 1  In  another  place,  Mr.  Palfrey 


1  Palfrey’s  Hist,  of  H.  England ,  Yol.  I.  p.  171.  1ST.  3. 


EXTERNAL  EVIDENCE  :  TRADITION. 


75 


has  occasion  to  observe:  “When  Josiah  Quincy,  of 
Boston,  was  twelve  or  thirteen  years  old,  Nathanael 
Appleton  was  still  minister  of  Cambridge,  and  a 
preacher  in  the  Boston  pulpits  ;  Appleton,  bom  in 
Ipswich  in  1693,  had  often  sat,  it  is  likely,  on  the 
knees  of  Governor  Bradstreet,  who  was  his  father's 
neighbor ;  and  Bradstreet  came  from  England,  in 
John  Winthrop’s  company,  in  1630.  Eyes  that  had 
seen  men  who  had  seen  the  founders  of  a  cisatlantic 
England,  have  looked  also  on  New  England  as  she 
presents  herself  to-day.”1  Mr.  Quincy  died  in  1864. 
Every  man  of  seventy  who  can  unite  his  memory 
with  the  memories  of  the  individuals  who  had  attained 
the  same  age  when  he  was  young,  can  go  back 
through  a  period  of  more  than  a  hundred  years,  lie 
can  state  what  was  recollected  fifty  years  ago  con¬ 
cerning  events  that  took  place  a  half  century  before. 
If,  in  reference  to  a  particular  fact,  we  fix  the  earliest 
age  of  trustworthy  recollection  at  fifteen,  and  sup¬ 
pose  each  of  those,  whose  memories  are  thus  united, 
to  give  their  report  at  the  age  of  eighty,  there  is 
covered  a  period  of  one  hundred  and  thirty  years. 
We  can  easilv  think  of  cases  where,  from  the  charac- 

e/  y 

ter  of  both  the  witnesses,  the  evidence  thus  derived 
would  be  entirely  conclusive. 

But  traditionary  evidence  had  a  special  security 
and  a  special  strength  in  the  case  of  the  early  Christian 


1  Palfrey’s  Hist.,  Yol.  III.  p.  vi.  of  the  preface. 


76 


GENUINENESS  OE  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 


Church.  The  Church,  as  Mayer  forcibly  observes,  had 
a  physical  and  spiritual  continuity  of  life.  There  was 
a  close  connection  of  its  members  one  with  another. 
“  Like  a  stream  of  water,  such  a  stream  of  youths, 
adults,  and  old  men  is  an  unbroken  whole.”  The 
Church  was  a  community — an  association.  A  body  of 
this  kind,  says  Mayer,  recognizes  that  which  is  new  as 
new.  It  is  protected  from  imposition.  How  would  it 
be  possible,  he  inquires,  for  a  new  Augsburg  Confession 
to  be  palmed  upon  the  Lutheran  churches  as  a  docu¬ 
ment  that  had  long  been  generally  accepted  ? 

In  estimating  the  force  of  this  reasoning,  we  must 
take  notice  of  the  number  of  the  early  Christians. 
We  must  remember  that  at  the  close  of  the  first 
century  Christianity  was  planted  in  all  the  principal 
cities  of  the  Roman  Empire.  It  was  in  the  great 
cities  and  centres  of  intercourse,  as  Jerusalem,  Antioch, 
Ephesus,  Corinth,  Alexandria,  Rome,  that  Christianity 
was  earliest  established.  As  early  as  Nero’s  persecu¬ 
tion  (a.  d.  64)  the  Christians  who  were  condemned, 
constituted,  according  to  Tacitus,  a  “  great  multitude.”  1 
In  Asia  Minor,  in  the  time  of  Trajan,  or  at  the  close 
of  the  century,  they  had  become  so  numerous  that, 
according  to  Pliny,  the  heathen  temples  were  almost 
deserted.  A  century  later,  making  due  allowance  for 
the  rhetorical  exaggeration  of  Tertullian,  and  not 
depending  on  him  alone,  we  are  certain  that  the 
number  of  the  Christians  had  vastly  multiplied.  In 

1  Ann.,  I.  xv.  c.  44. 


EXTERNAL  EVIDENCE. 


77 


every  part  of  the  Roman  Empire,  in  all  places  of  con¬ 
sideration,  and  even  in  rural  districts,  Christian  assem¬ 
blies  regularly  met  for  worship.  And  in  all  these 
weekly  meetings  the  writings  of  the  apostles  were 
publicly  read,  as  we  learn  from  so  early  a  writer  as 
Justin  Martyr. 

Now  we  have  to  look  at  the  Christian  churches  in 
the  second  century,  and  ask  if  it  was  possible  for  a 
history  of  Christ,  falsely  pretending  to  be  from  the 
pen  of  the  Apostle  John,  to  be  brought  forward  twenty, 
thirty,  or  forty  years  after  his  death,  be  introduced  into 
all  the  churches  east  and  west,  taking  its  place  every¬ 
where  in  the  public  services  of  Sunday  ?  Was  there 
no  one  to  ask  where  this  new  Gospel  came  from,  and 
where  it  had  lain  concealed?  Was  there  no  one,  of 
the  many  who  had  personally  known  John,  to  expose 
the  gigantic  imposture,  or  even  to  raise  a  note  of  sur¬ 
prise  at  the  unexpected  appearance  of  so  important  a 
document,  of  which  they  had  never  heard  before? 
How  was  the  populous  church  at  Ephesus  brought  to 
accept  this  work  on  the  very  spot  where  John  had  lived 
and  died  ? 

The  difficulty,  nay  the  moral  impossibility,  of  sup¬ 
posing  that  this  Gospel  first  saw  the  light  in  160  or 
140  or  120,  or  at  any  of  the  dates  which  are  assigned 
by  the  Tubingen  critics,  will  be  rendered  apparent,  if 
we  candidly  look  at  the  subject.1  We  have  spoken  of 

1  The  latest  assailant  of  the  Genuineness  of  John,  Sheukel,  in  his 
work,  Das  Charalcterbild  Jesu ,  places  the  date  of  the  Gospel  from 


78 


GENUINENESS  OE  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 


Irenaeus  and  of  his  testimony  to  the  undisputed,  un¬ 
doubting  reception,  by  all  the  churches,,  of  the  fourth 
Gospel.  If  this  Gospel  first  appeared  as  late  as  or  later 
than  120,  how  does  it  happen  that  he  had  not  learned 
the  fact  from  the  aged  presbyters  whom  he  had  known 
in  Asia  Minor  ?  Irenaeus,  before  becoming  bishop,  was 
the  colleague  of  Pothinus  at  Lyons,  who  perished  as  a 
martyr,  having,  as  the  letter  of  his  church  states, 
passed  his  ninetieth  year.  Here  was  a  man  whose 
active  life  extended  back  well-nigh  to  the  very  begin¬ 
ning  of  the  century,  who  was  born  before  John  died. 
Supposing  John’s  Gospel  to  have  appeared  as  late  as 
120,  the  earliest  date  admitted  by  any  part  of  the 
skeptical  school,  Pothinus  was  then  upwards  of  thirty 
years  old.  Did  this  man,  who  loved  Christianity 
so  well  that  he  submitted  to  torture  and  death  for  its 
sake,  never  think  to  mention  to  Irenaeus  an  event 
of  so  great  consequence  as  was  this  late  discovery  of 
a  life  of  the  Lord  from  the  pen  of  his  most  beloved 
disciple,  and  of  its  reception  by  the  churches  ?  Polyc- 
rates,  bishop  of  Ephesus,  at  the  time  of  his  contro¬ 
versy  with  Victor,  describes  himself  as  being  “  sixty- 
five  years  of  age  in  the  Lord,”  as  having  “  conferred 

a.  d.  110-120.  This  indicates  progress  in  the  right  direction  among  the 
skeptical  critics.  But  as  they  push  back  the  date,  they  have  to  en¬ 
counter  a  new  source  of  difficulty.  The  nearer  they  approach  to  the 
time  of  the  Apostle,  the  greater  the  number  of  persons  who  were 
familiar  with  him  and  his  circumstances,  and  the  greater  the  obstacle, 
from  this  cause,  to  a  successful  imposture.  It  may  here  be  observed 
that  Shenkel  contributes  nothing  new  on  the  question  before  us. 


EXTERNAL  EVIDENCE. 


79 


with  the  brethren  throughout  the  world,  and  studied 
the  whole  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures  ;  ”  as  being  also  of 
a  family,  seven  of  whose  members  had  held  the  office 
of  bishop  or  presbyter.  According  to  his  statement, 
his  own  life  began  as  early  at  least  as  the  year  125, 
while  through  his  family  he  was  directly  connected 
with  the  contemporaries  of  John.  IIow  is  it  that 
Poly  crates  appears  to  have  known  nothing  about  this 
late  appearance  of  the  wonderful  Gospel  which  bore 
the  name  of  John,  but  was  the  work  of  a  great 
unknown  ?  How  is  it  that  the  family  of  Polycrates 
either  knew  nothing  of  so  startling  an  event,  or  if  they 
knew  anything  of  it  preserved  an  absolute  silence? 
Clement  of  Alexandria  had  sat  at  the  feet  of  venerable 
teachers  in  different  countries,  of  whom  he  says  that 
they  “  have  lived  by  the  blessing  of  God  to  our  time, 
to  lodge  in  our  minds  the  seeds  of  the  ancient  and 
apostolic  doctrine.”  Prom  none  of  these  had  he 
derived  any  information  of  that  event,  so  remarka¬ 
ble,  if  we  suppose  it  to  have  occurred — the  sudden 
discovery  of  a  gospel  history  by  the  Apostle  John, 
of  which  the  Christian  world  had  not  before  heard. 
Justin  says  that  in  the  churches  there  are  many  men 
and  women  of  sixty  and  seventy  years  of  age,  who 
Lave  been  Christians  from  their  youth ;  and  he  is 
speaking  only  of  the  unmarried  class.1 

So  at  every  preceding  and  subsequent  moment  in 
the  first  half  of  the  second  century,  there  were  many 

1  Aj>ol.,  I.  c.  15. 


80 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 


old  persons  in  every  larger  church  whose  memory  went 
back  far  into  the  apostolic  age.  Now  if  the  statement 
of  Irenaeus  and  his  contemporaries  as  to  the  compo¬ 
sition  of  the  fourth  Gospel  by  the  Apostle  John 
was  false,  and  this  work  in  reality  saw  the  light 
not  till  long  after  his  death,  when  some  forger 
offered  it  for  acceptance,  how  is  it  possible  that 
there  should  be  none  to  investigate  its  origin  when 
it  first  appeared,  and  none  afterwards  to  correct  the 
prevalent  opinion  concerning  it  ? 

There  is  no  way  for  the  skeptical  critic  to  meet 
this  positive  argument,  founded  on  the  unanimous 
voice  of  tradition,  and  this  negative  argument  cib 
silentio  in  refutation  of  his  theory,  unless  he  can  prove 
that  the  Christians  of  the  second  century  were  so 
indifferent  as  to  the  origin  of  their  scriptures  that  they 
received  whatever  might  offer  itself  to  their  accept¬ 
ance,  provided  the  contents  were  agreeable  to  their 
doctrines  and  prepossessions.  If  there  were  few  or 
none  who  were  either  inquisitive  or  competent  to  judge 
of  the  real  claims  of  a  book  that  professed  to  be  an 
authentic  and  apostolic  history  of  Christ,  then  an 
imposture  of  this  magnitude  might  be  successful, 
provided  a  person  were  found  shrewd  and  unscrupulous 
enough  to  undertake  it.  But  how  stands  the  fact? 
The  greater  portion  of  the  early  Christians  were 
undoubtedly  from  the  poorer  class.  Even  these  must 
have  been  deeply  interested  in  obtaining  authentic 
accounts  of  that  Master  for  whom  they  were  offering 


EXTERNAL  EVIDENCE. 


81 


up  life  itself.  But  they  had  among  them  trained, 
inquisitive  scholars  —  men  educated  in  the  schools 
of  philosophy.  Justin  Martyr  and  the  Greek  Apolo¬ 
gists  are  not  liable  to  the  charge  of  illiteracy.  It  was 
a  time  when  Christianity  had  to  answer  for  itself,  as 
well  in  treatises  addressed  to  the  public  magistrate  as 
before  the  civil  tribunals.  It  is,  moreover,  a  note¬ 
worthy  fact  that  the  writers  bring  to  the  Scriptures  the 
test  of  historical  inquiry.  They  do  not  ask  what  book 
is  cloctrinally  acceptable,  but  what  book  bears  the 
stamp  of  an  apostolic  approval.  Clement  may  bring 
forward  a  statement  from  an  apocryphal  gospel  of  the 
Egyptians,  but  he  is  careful  to  warn  the  reader  that  if 
is  not  contained  in  the  four  Gospels  which  “  have  been 
handed  down  to  us.”  Irenaeus  and  Tertullian  insist 
only  upon  the  historical  evidence  that  the  canonical 
Scriptures  are  apostolic.  Nothing  but  authentic  tradi¬ 
tion  is  of  any  weight  with  them  on  the  question.  It  is 
true  that  Schwegler,  Strauss,  and  some  other  writers  are 
in  the  habit  of  asserting  that  the  Christians  of  the  first 
ages  were  wholly  uncritical,  and  were  satisfied  with  the 
claim  of  any  book  to  be  apostolic,  if  it  seemed  edify¬ 
ing.  But  scholars  need  not  be  told  that  sweeping 
representations  of  this  nature  are  not  sustained  by 
proof  and  are  grossly  exaggerated.  Origen,  that  most 
learned  and  inquisitive  scholar,  wras  born  when  Irenaeus 
was  still  in  the  midst  of  his  activity.  The  earlier  con¬ 
flicts  with  Judaizing  and  Gnostic  heresy  which  carry 

us  far  back  of  Irenaeus  towards  the  commencement 
6 


82 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 


of  the  century,,  stimulated  Christians  to  the  exercise  of 
discrimination  in  respect  to  writings  which  claimed  an 
apostolic  sanction.  Appeal  is  made  to  the  instance 
of  the  partial  acceptance,  at  the  end  of  the  second  or 
early  in  the  third  century,  of  the  Pseudo-Clementine 
Homilies.  This  work,  however,  was  accompanied  with 
pretended  documents  in  attestation  of  its  apostolic 
authorship,  and  with  an  explanation  of  the  reason  why 
it  did  not  sooner  appear;1  and  was  hence  supposed  to 
be  a  genuine  work  which  had  been  altered  and  inter¬ 
polated  by  heretics.  A  few  facts  of  this  nature  are  no 
more  sufficient  to  convict  the  contemporaries  of  Origen, 
Irenaeus,  and  Justin  of  utter  indifference  or  heedless¬ 
ness  in  respect  to  the  authorship  of  books,  than  the 
acceptance  of  Ossian  or  the  credence  given  to  the 
Shaksperian  forgeries  of  Ireland  suffice  to  convict  the 
contemporaries  of  Person  and  Johnson  of  a  like  stu¬ 
pidity.  Moreover,  the  incomparably  greater  import¬ 
ance  which  belonged  to  the  histories  of  the  life  and 
teachings  of  Christ,  in  the  estimation  of  the  early 
Christians,  by  the  side  of  such  works  as  the  Clementine 
Homilies  and  Recognitions,  destroys  the  parallel.  The 
latter  might  be  accepted,  in  certain  circles  at  least, 
with  little  inquiry ;  that  a  deception  should  be  success¬ 
ful,  and  universally  successful,  in  the  case  of  the  former, 
is  inconceivable.  All  the  knowledge  we  have  relative 
to  the  formation  of  the  New  Testament  canon  goes  to 
disprove  the  imputation  of  carelessness  or  incompetency 
1  See  Gieseler’s  lu  G.,  B.  1. 285.  1ST.  21. 


EXTERNAL  EVIDENCE. 


83 


brought  against  the  Christians  of  the  second  century. 
There  is  proof  that  the  four  Gospels  of  our  canon  were 
distinguished,  as  having  preeminent  authority,  from 
all  other  evangelical  histories  in  the  early  part  of  the 
second  century.  All  other  narratives  of  the  life  of 
Christ,  including  those  of  the  manv  writers  of  whom 
Luke  speaks  in  the  introduction  to  his  Gospel,  as  well 
as  those  of  subsequent  authors,  were  discarded,  and, 
if  used  at  all,  were  explicitly  treated  as  not  endued 
with  authority.  Lour,  and  only  the  four,  in  the  time 
of  Irenaeus  and  Tertullian,  were  regarded  as  apostolic 
and  canonical.  Lechler1  mentions  an  example  from 
Eusebius  illustrating  the  feeling  of  church  teachers  at 
that  time.  Serapion,  who  was  bishop  of  Antioch 
about  190,  found  in  circulation  at  Rhosse  (Orossus),  a 
town  of  Cilicia,  an  apocryphal  gospel  called  the  Gospel 
of  Peter.  He  says  in  regard  to  it :  “  We,  brethren, 
receive  Peter  and  the  other  apostles  as  Christ  himself. 
But  those  writings  which  falsely  go  under  their  name, 
as  we  are  well  acquainted  with  them,  we  reject,  and 
know  also  that  we  have  not  received  such  handed  dozen 
to  us”  2  This  is  one  expression ;  but  it  falls  in  with 
the  whole  current  of  the  evidence  in  relation  to  the 
temper  of  Irenaeus  and  his  contemporaries. 

Having  thus  surveyed  the  external  proofs  of  the 
genuineness  of  John,  we  pass  to  consider 

1  Studien  u.  Krit .,  1856.  4.  s.  871. 

2  Euseb.,  Lib.  VI.  c.  12. 


84 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 


The  Internal  Evidence. 

1 .  The  fourth  Gospel  claims  to  be  the  work  of  the 
Apostle  John ;  and  the  manner  of  this  claim  is  a 
testimony  to  its  truth.  The  author  explicitly  declares 
himself  an  eyewitness  of  the  transactions  recorded 
by  him  (i.  14,  compared  with  1  John  i.  1-3,  iv.  14  ; 
John  xix.  35 ;  compare  also  xxi.  24.)  In  the  course 
of  his  narrative,  one  of  the  disciples,  instead  of  being 
referred  to  by  name,  is  characterized  as  that  “  disciple 
whom  Jesus  loved  ”  (xiii.  23  ;  xix.  26  ;  xx.  2  seq. ;  xxi. 
7).  In  the  appendix  to  the  Gospel  (xxi.  24  ;  compare 
ver.  20)  this  disciple  is  declared  to  be  its  author.  And 
we  cannot  well  explain  this  circumlocution,  except  on 
the  supposition  that  the  author  resorts  to  it  in  order  to 
avoid  the  mention  of  his  own  name.  Now,  who  of  the 
disciples  most  intimate  with  Jesus  is  referred  to  under 
this  description?  Not  Peter;  for  Peter  is  not  only 
repeatedly  spoken  of  by  his  own  name,  but  is  expressly 
distinguished  from  the  disciple  in  question  (xiii.  24  ; 
xx.  2  seq. ;  xxi.  7  ;  20  seq.).  Not  James  ;  for  besides 
the  proof  derived  from  the  universal  supposition  of  the 
ancient  Church,  that  James  was  not  the  person  denoted, 
we  know  that  he  was  put  to  death  early  in  the  apostolic 
age  (Acts  xii.  2),  while  we  may  infer  from  John  xxi. 
23,  which  is  otherwise  confirmed,  that  the  disciple  in 
question  must  have  reached  an  advanced  age.  If  it  be 
granted  that  the  author,  whoever  he  may  have  been, 
was  one  of  the  original  disciples,  James  is  excluded, 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE. 


85 


because  the  Gospel  was  evidently  written  later  than 
his  deatln,  and  out  of  Palestine.  But  if  the  disciple 
whom  Jesus  loved  is  not  Peter  or  James,  who  can  it 
be  but  John  ?  That  the  author  would  represent  him¬ 
self  to  be  John;  is  also  strongly  suggested  by  his 
omitting  to  attacli  to  the  name  of  John  (the  Baptist) 
the  usual  appellation  6  j3u7CTL6Tr]gy  especially  when  we 
observe  that  he  is  elsewhere  careful,  as  in  the  case  of 
Peter  and  of  Judas,  to  designate  precisely  the  person 
meant.  Supposing  the  writer  to  be  himself  John  the 
Evangelist ,  and  moreover  to  have  stood,  as  a  disciple, 
in  an  intimate  relation  with  the  Baptist,  we  have  a 
double  reason  for  his  omitting  in  the  case  of  the  latter 
this  usual  title.  The  connection  of  the  beloved  dis¬ 
ciple  with  Peter  (xx.  2  seq. ;  xxi.  7  ;  and  also  xviii.  15 
seq.,  where  the  aXkog  /uaztrjr^g  is  none  other  than  the 
beloved  disciple)  is  another  argument  tending  to  show 
that  John  is  meant ;  since  we  find  afterwards,  in  the 
Acts,  that  John  and  Peter  are  closely  associated.1 

Indeed,  it  is  held  by  Baur  that  the  design  is  to 
lead  the  reader  to  the  inference  that  John  is  the 
author.  Now,  if  we  suppose  that  this  inference  is 
the  simple  fact,  we  have  in  the  modest  suppression 
of  his  name  by  John  the  manifestation  of  a  certain 
delicacy  of  feeling,  which  is  consonant  with  the  spirit 
of  the  work.  It  would  be  connected  with  its  real 
author  by  those  to  whom  he  gave  it,  without  any 


1  See  also  Luke  xxii.  8. 


86 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 


proclamation  on  his  part  of  his  relation  to  it ;  as  in 
truth  it  was  ascribed  to  John  from  the  outset.  On 
the  contrary,  supposing  the  Gospel  not  to  be  genuine, 
we  are  obliged  to  attribute  to  the  author  a  refine¬ 
ment  in  fraud,  an  outlay  of  skill  in  deception,  wholly 
inconsistent  wTith  the  simplicity  and  pure  tone  of  this 
Gospel,  and  not  likely  to  exist  in  a  literary  forger. 
Judging  from  other  known  specimens  of  apocryphal 
literature,  and  from  the  intrinsic  probabilities  in  the 
case,  we  should  expect  of  such  a  fraudulent  writer, 
that  he  would  boldly  and  openly  assume  the  name 
and  apostolic  authority  of  John,  instead  of  leaving 
the  authorship  to  be  ascertained  in  the  manner  we 
have  indicated,  by  a  careful  inspection  and  combina¬ 
tion  of  passages.  The  indirect,  modest  way,  then, 
in  which  the  author  discovers  himself,  carries  with  it 
the  unmistakable  character  of  truth. 

2.  The  truth  of  this  claim  of  the  fourth  Gospel 
to  have  John  for  its  author,  is  confirmed  by  the 
graphic  character  of  the  narrative,  the  many  touches 
characteristic  of  an  eyewitness,  and  by  other  indica¬ 
tions  of  an  immediate  knowledge,  on  the  part  of  the 
writer,  of  the  things  he  relates. 

In  respect  to  these  points,  which  mark  the  narra¬ 
tive  as  the  product  of  an  eyewitness  and  of  one 
directly  cognizant  of  the  facts,  none  of  the  other 
Gospels  can  be  compared  with  the  fourth.  We 
have  not  in  mind  here  the  general  plan  and  outline 
of  the  history,  which  will  be  considered  under  another 


/ 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE. 


87 


head,  but  rather  the  style  in  which  the  various  inci¬ 
dents  are  presented.  Of  this  pervading  peculiarity 
of  the  fourth  Gospel  our  readers  will  be  reminded 
by  a  few  examples.  As  one  instance,  we  may  refer 
to  John  i.  35  seq.,  where  an  account  is  given  of 
the  calling  of  the  disciples :  “  again  the  next  day 
after” — the  day  is  thus  definitely  given — “  John  stood 
and  two  of  his  disciples;  and  looking  upon  Jesus  as 
he  walked,” — here  we  have  the  position  of  both 
John  and  Jesus, — “  he  saith,  ‘  Behold  the  Lamb 
of  God!  ’  And  the  two  disciples  heard  him  speak, 
and  they  followed  Jesus.  Then  Jesus  turned  and  saw 
them  following ,  and  saith,”  etc.  In  reply  to  their 
question,  “  ‘  Where  dwellest  thou  ?  ’  He  saith  unto 
them,  e  Come  and  see/  They  came  and  saw  where 
he  dwelt,  and  abode  with  him  that  day,  for  it  teas 
about  the  tenth  hour.”  Supposing  the  writer  to 
have  been  one  of  these  two  disciples,  speaking  of 
an  event  that  would  be  indelibly  stamped  upon 
his  memory,  this  minuteness  of  description  would 
be  natural.  If  we  have  not  an  eyewitness,  we 
have  a  subtle  and  painstaking  deceiver.  Tor  another 
example  of  vivid  recollection  we  may  refer  to  John 
xiii.  21  seq.,  in  the  description  of  the  last  supper. 
We  are  told  that  Jesus  was  troubled  in  spirit,  “and 
said,  ‘  Verily,  verily  I  say  unto  you  that  one  of  you 
shall  betray  me/  Then  the  disciples  looked  one  on 
another ,  doubting  of  whom  he  spake.”  There  is 
first  an  interval  of  silence,  and  looks  of  inquiry  and 


88 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 


fear  cast  from  one  to  another ;  but  who  would 
venture  to  ask  the  question,  which  of  their  number 
was  to  be  faithless ?  “Now  there  was  leaning  on 
Jesus’  bosom  one  of  the  disciples  whom  Jesus  loved. 
Simon  Peter  therefore  beckoned  to  him  ” — he  signified 
his  wish  by  a  motion  of  the  hand — “that  he  should 
ask  who  it  should  be  of  whom  he  spake.  He  then 
lying  on  Jesus’  breast,  saith  unto  him,  ‘  Lord,  who 
is  it  ?  Jesus  replies  that  he  will  point  out  the 

individual  by  handing  him  the  sop.  This  silent  act, 
understood  by  John,  was  followed  by  the  remark  of 
Jesus  to  Judas  :  “  That  thou  doest,  do  quickly.  Now 
no  man  at  the  table  knew  for  what  intent  he  spake 
this  unto  him.”  Some  of  them,  we  are  told,  thought 
that  Judas  was  directed  to  buy  those  things  that 
they  “  had  need  of  against  the  feast,  or  to  give  some¬ 
thing  to  the  poor.”  Who  can  avoid  feeling  that  the 
writer  is  here  presenting  a  scene  that  was  pictured 
on  his  memory  ?  How  unnatural,  as  well  as  painful, 
is  the  supposition  of  a  carefully  contrived  fiction ! 
Another  instance  of  particular  recollection  is  found 
in  John  xviii.  15  seq.,  where,  in  connection  with  the 
account  of  the  bringing  of  Christ  before  Caiaphas, 
we  read  :  “And  Simon  Peter  followed  Jesus,  and  so 
did  another  disciple;  that  disciple  was  Jcnown  unto  the 
high  priest ,  and  went  in  with  the  Jews  into  the 
palace  of  the  high  priest.  But  Peter  stood  at  the 
door  without .”  Peter  had  no  such  means  of  admis¬ 
sion.  “  Then  went  out  that  other  disciple  which 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE. 


89 


was  known  unto  the  high  priest,  and  spake  unto  her 
that  kept  the  door ,  and  brought  in  Peter.”  There 
the  inquiry  of  this  door-keeper  drew  from  Peter  his 
first  denial  of  a  connection  with  Christ ;  and  we  read 
further:  “The  servants  and  officers  stood  there,  wJlo 
had  made  a  fire  of  coals;  for  it  teas  cold:  and  they 
warmed  themselves,  and  Peter  stood  with  them  and 
warmed  himself.”  The  circumstance  of  there  being 
a  fire  is  mentioned  by  Luke,  but  in  the  manner  of 
stating  it  in  John,  as  well  as  in  the  preceding  circum¬ 
stances  that  are  peculiar  to  him,  we  find  the  clearest 
signs  of  a  personal  recollection.  The  record  of  the 
inward  conflict  and  vacillation  of  Pilate  as  displayed 
in  his  conduct  (ch.  xix.),  is  characterized  by  the  same 
features,  which  show  it  to  be  a  vivid  recollection  of 
circumstances  witnessed  by  the  writer.  So  there 
is  much  in  the  narrative  of  the  crucifixion  having 
the  same  peculiarity.  Thus  we  read  (vs.  26,  27) : 
“  When  Jesus  therefore  saw  his  mother,  and  the 
disciple  standing  by  whom  he  loved,  he  saith  unto 
his  mother,  c  Woman,  behold  thy  son.’  Then  saith 
he  to  the  disciple,  'Behold  thy  mother/  And  from 
that  hour  that  disciple  took  her  to  his  own  home.” 
And  again  we  read  (vs.  34,  35)  :  “  One  of  the  soldiers 
with  a  spear  pierced  his  side,  and  forthwith  came 
thereout  blood  and  water.  And  he  that  saio  it  hare 
record ,  and  his  record  is  true ;  and  he  knoweth  that 
he  saith  true,  that  ye  might  believe.”  Is  this  too 
a  fiction,  which  the  author  sought  to  commend  to 


90 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 


credence  by  a  solemn  asseveration,  or  is  it  a  simple, 
faithful  reminiscence  ? 

What  a  life-like  description,  and  how  true  to  the 
conception  elsewhere  gained  of  the  respective  charac¬ 
ters,  is  the  account  of  the  running  of  Peter  and  John 
to  the  empty  sepulchre!  They  “ran  both  together;  55 
but  the  other  disciple,  outrunning  Peter  and  arriving 
first  at  the  sepulchre,  pauses,  and,  stooping  doicn  to 
look  in,  sees  “  the  linen  clothes  lying ;  ”  yet  struck, 
perhaps,  with  a  feeling  of  awe^  enters  not.  “Then 
cometh  Simon  Peter  following  him ;  ”  but  not  sharing- 
in  the  hesitation  of  his  companion,  with  characteristic 
impetuosity,  at  once  goes  in,  “  and  seetk  the  linen 
clothes  lie,  and  the  napkin  that  loas  about  his  head 
not  lying  with  the  linen  clothes ,  but  wrapped  together 
in  a  place  by  itself.  Then,”  encouraged  by  the 
example  of  his  more  forward  associate,  “went  in 
also  that  other  disciple ,  which  came  first  to  the 
sepulchre,  and  he  saw  and  believed”  (xx.  3-9). 
The  same  freshness  and  naturalness  which  belong 
to  the  record  of  outward  events  are  found  in  the 
portrayal  of  mental  experiences.  We  mention,  as 
an  example,  the  notice  of  the  refusal  of  Thomas  to 
believe  without  seeing,  and  of  the  reaction  of  his 
mind  on  being  shown  the  print  of  the  nails  (John 
xx.  24-30)  ;  and  the  refusal  of  Peter  to  have  his 
feet  washed  by  the  Master,  followed  by  the  request : 
“Not  my  feet  only,  but  also  my  hands  and  my 
head”  (John  xiii.  9).  The  ninth  chapter,  which 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE. 


91 


describes  the  healing  of  a  man  who  had  been  blind 
from  his  birth,  and  the  eleventh  chapter,  containing 
the  narrative  of  the  raising  of  Lazarus,  in  their 
naturalness,  vividness,  and  fulness  of  detail,  cannot 
fail  to  impress  the  candid  reader  with  the  conviction 
that  the  writer  was  personally  cognizant  of  the  cir¬ 
cumstances  he  relates.  In  how  simple,  unartificial 
a  strain  does  the  narrative,  in  each  case,  proceed ! 
And  in  how  life-like  a  way  are  the  circumstances 
linked  together !  Observe,  in  the  first  narrative, 
the  exclamation  of  the  neighbors  on  seeing  the  man’s 
sight  restored ;  “  Is  not  this  he  that  sat  and  begged?  ” 
the  different  voices  :  “  some  said,  ‘  this  is  he  ;  ’  others 
said,  ‘ it  is  like  him  ;  ’  but  he  said,  ‘  I  am  he  ;  ’  ” 

the  evident  perplexity  of  the  Pharisees  ;  the  parents’ 

way  of  prudently  evading  a  direct  answer  to  their 
interrogatories  by  referring  them  to  the  man  himself : 
“  he  is  of  age,  ask  him ;  ”  the  naif  energy  with 

which  he  confronted  the  Pharisees’  queries.  In 
reading  this  passage  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  it  is  difficult 
to  resist  the  impression  that  the  writer  is  stating, 
in  a  perfectly  artless  manner,  circumstances  that 
fell  within  his  own  immediate  knowledge.  Not  less 
strongly  is  this  impression  made  of  the  writer’s 

immediate  knowledge,  as  well  as  fidelity,  in  reading 
the  eleventh  chapter.  Notice,  for  example,  this 
passage  in  the  conversation  of  Jesus  with  his  disciples 
before  he  started  for  Bethany  :  “  after  that  he  saith 
unto  them,  ‘  Our  friend  Lazarus  sleepeth  ;  but  I  go 


92  GENUINENESS  OE  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 

that  I  may  awake  him  out  of  sleep/  Then  said  his 
disciples,  ‘  Lord,  if  he  sleep,  he  shall  do  well/ 
Howbeit  Jesus  spake  of  his  death ;  but  they  thought 
that  he  had  spoken  of  taking  of  rest  in  sleep.  Then 
said  Jesus  unto  them  plainly,  ‘Lazarus  is  dead/” 
This  conversation  was  surely  remembered.  What 
motive  would  lead  one  to  invent  such  a  conversa¬ 
tion?  Observe,  also,  the  graphic  minuteness  of 
the  following  statements  (vs.  28  seq.) :  Martha,  who 
had  gone  out  to  meet  Jesus,  when  she  had  spoken 
with  him,  “  went  her  way  and  called  Mary  her  sister 
secretly ,  saying,  e  the  Master  is  come  and  calleth 
for  thee/  As  soon  as  she  heard  that,  she  arose 
quickly  and  came  unto  him.  Now  Jesus  was  not 
yet  come  into  the  town,  but  was  in  that  place  where 
Martha  met  him.  The  Jews  then  which  were  with 
her  in  the  house,  when  they  saw  Mary  that  she 
rose  up  hastily  and  went  out,  followed  her,  saying, 
‘  she  goeth  unto  the  grave  to  weep  there/  ”  We 
must  suppose  here  either  an  accurate  knowledge 
on  the  part  of  the  writer,  or  an  elaborate  and 
gratuitous  skill  in  contriving  falsehood.  Who  can 
follow  this  narrative  through,  and  note  the  expres¬ 
sions  of  deep-felt  human  feeling, — including  the 
reference,  in  a  single  word,  to  the  tears  of  Jesus, — 
and  not  be  struck  with  the  obvious  truthfulness  of 
the  writer?  Or  are  there  no  marks  by  which  sincerity 
and  truth  can  be  distinguished  from  fraud  ?  1 


1  Among  the  illustrations  of  the  present  topic  referred  to  by 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE. 


93 


There  are  many  passages  which  show  incon- 
testibly  that  the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel  wrote 
from  an  interest  in  the  history  as  such.1  There 
are  numerous  uncontrived  and  unmistakable  signs 
that  he  is  writing  from  recollection,  and  not  from 
invention.  Among  the  examples  of  this  peculiarity 
are  the  allusions  to  Nicodemus  in  three  places,  which 
are  widely  apart  from  each  other  (John  iii.  2;  vii.  50; 
xix.  39),  and  which  imply  an  increasing  faith  in  his 
mind.  The  particular  mention  of  the  time  of  the 
occurrence  of  different  events,  as  on  this  or  that  day, 
is  not  important  to  the  narrative,  and  simply  indicates 
that  the  writer  brings  out  facts  as  they  lie  in  memory : 
see  John  ii.  13  ;  iv.  6,  40,  43  ;  v.  i. ;  vi.  4,  22 ;  vii.  2, 
14;  xii.  1,  12  ;  xviii.  27  seq.  ;  xix.  14.  The  name  of 
the  servant  whose  ear  was  cut  off  by  Peter  is  given  : 
John  xviii.  10.  Localities  are  designated,  where  no 
other  than  a  historical  interest  can  prompt  the 
writer  to  do  so.  Por  example,  it  is  said  (c.  iii.  23) 
that  John  was  baptizing  “  in  Aenon  near  to  Salim  :  ” 
the  Evangelist  describes  a  pool  at  Jerusalem  (John  v. 

De  Wette  ( Einl .  in  das  JV.  T.  §  105.  a),  and  which  we  have  not  espe¬ 
cially  noticed,  are  John  v.  10  seq.  (the  circumstances  that  followed 
the  cure  wrought  at  the  pool  of  Bethesda  ;  the  questions  put  to  the 
man  who  had  been  healed,  by  the  Jews ;  his  not  knowing  who  it 
wms  that  had  healed  him  ;  his  subsequent  meeting  with  Jesus  in  the 
temple) ;  vii.  1  seq.  (the  secret  journey  of  Christ  to  the  feast  of 
Tabernacles,  after  the  conversation  with  his  unbelieving  relatives)  ; 
xii.  The  whole  of  chap.  iv.  (the  interview  of  Christ  with  the  woman 
of  Samaria),  is  a  striking  example  of  vivid,  detailed  narration. 

1  See  Bruckner’s  De  Wette,  Einl.,  s.  xv. 


94 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 


2),  as  being  by  the  sheep-gate — gate  and  not  market 
should  have  been  supplied  by  the  English  translators 
■ — and  “  called  in  the  Hebrew  tongue,  Bethesda, 
having  five  porches:”  in  c.  viii.  1,  we  read  that 
“  Jesus  went  unto  the  mount  of  Olives,  and  earlv 
in  the  morning  he  came  again  into  the  temple  ;  ”  so 
that  the  fact  of  his  going  at  night  to  the  mount  of 
Olives  is  simply  recorded,  with  no  mention  of  any¬ 
thing  that  he  did,  or  that  occurred  there — a  striking 
instance  of  historical  recollection,  since  no  signifi¬ 
cance  attached  to  the  bare  fact  of  his  going  to  the 
mount :  Philip  is  designated  (c.  xii.  21)  as  “  of  Beth- 
saida  of  Galilee,”  although  this  has  no  apparent 
connection  with  the  incident  there  recorded  of  him  : 
it  is  narrated  that  Pilate  sat  down  in  his  judgment- 
seat  “  that  is  called  the  Pavement,  but  in  the  Hebrew, 
Gabbatha ;  ”  a  description  of  no  moment  in  itself, 
but  involved  in  the  writer’s  recollection  of  the  spot. 

A  similar  mark  of  historical  faithfulness  is  con¬ 
tained  in  the  incidental  allusions  to  features  of  the 
gospel  history  which  yet  the  Evangelist  does  not 
record,  but  which  were  preserved  either  by  the 
Synoptics  or  in  oral  tradition.  These  things,  it  is 
assumed,  are  known  to  his  readers.  We  have  in 
John  iii.  24,  in  the  allusion  to  John’s  being  cast 
into  prison,  a  signal  instance  of  this  sort.  Jesus  is 
spoken  of  as  from  Nazareth  (John  i.  45,  46),  although 
no  explicit  statement  about  his  residence  there  had 
been  given.  He  is  designated  by  the  people  of 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE. 


95 


Nazareth  as  “  the  son  of  Joseph,  whose  father  and 
mother  ”  were  known  to  them  (John  vi.  42  ;  comp, 
i.  45).  For  the  first  time,  in  c.  vi.  67,  “  the  twelve  ” 
are  incidentally  mentioned.  Didymus,  the  Greek 
name  of  Thomas,  is  associated  with  the  Hebrew 
designation  of  this  apostle  in  John  ii.  16,  xx.  24, 
xxi.  2.  In  e.  xi.  2,  the  Evangelist  explains  paren¬ 
thetically  that  Mary,  the  sister  of  Martha,  was 
the  same  Mary  which  anointed  the  Lord  with  oint¬ 
ment,  and  wiped  his  feet  with  her  hair.  This  inci¬ 
dent,  which  is  given  in  Matthew  xxvi.  13,  Mark  xiv. 
19,  is  assumed  by  the  Evangelist  to  be  well  known, 
although  he  had  not  himself  recorded  it,  and  it 
appears  in  his  narrative  at  a  later  point  (c.  xii.  3). 

We  have  no  need  to  pursue  the  topic  further. 
We  find  everywhere  in  this  Gospel  the  air  and 
manner  of  an  eyewitness  and  participant  in  the  scenes 
recorded. 

3.  The  general  structure  and  contents  of  the 
fourth  Gospel,  considered  as  a  biography  of  Christ, 
are  a  convincing  argument  for  its  historical  truth  and 
genuineness. 

We  come  now  to  the  decisive  point  in  the  conflict 
between  the  advocates  and  the  opponents  of  the 
genuineness  of  this  Gospel.  It  is  contended  by  the 
latter  that  the  representation  which  is  found  in  the 
fourth  Gospel,  both  of  the  course  of  events  in  the  life 
of  Christ  and  of  the  character  of  his  teachings,  is  not 
only  “  divergent  from  that  of  the  other  Gospels, 


96 


GENUINENESS  OE  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 


but  absolutely  incompatible  with  it and  that  since 
these  Gospels  in  this  respect  are  right,  the  fourth 
cannot  be  the  work  of  an  apostle. 

The  difference  between  the  fourth  Gospel  and  the 
other  three,  in  the  particulars  referred  to,  is  in 
truth  very  palpable  and  very  important.  The  impres¬ 
sion  made  by  the  first  three,  or  synoptical  Gospels, 
regarded  by  themselves,  is  that  Jesus,  after  his  bap¬ 
tism  and  temptation,  repaired  to  Galilee,  and  remained 
there  until  shortly  before  his  death,  when  he  went  up 
to  Jerusalem  to  the  passover.  They  record  his  teach¬ 
ings  and  miracles  in  Galilee  and  on  this  journey  to 
Jerusalem,  but  say  nothing  of  any  intermediate  visits 
to  that  city,  and  nothing  of  any  prior  labors  there. 
From  the  synoptical  Gospels  alone,  the  impression 
would  be  gathered  that  the  period  of  his  ministry 
was  only  a  year.  On  the  other  hand,  John  distinctly 
mentions  not  less  than  two  journeys  of  Jesus  from 
Galilee  to  Jerusalem  previous  to  the  last  (ii.  13;  v.  1), 
and  seems  to  justify  the  conclusion  that  in  each  of 

these  visits  he  remained  a  considerable  time  either  in 

* 

the  city  or  in  its  neighborhood.  The  duration  of  his 
ministry,  according  to  the  fourth  Gospel,  cannot 
be  less  than  two  years  and  a  half,  and  may  possibly 
exceed  three  years.  Not  less  remarkable  is  the  differ¬ 
ence  in  the  style  of  the  Saviour’s  teaching  in 
this  Gospel,  compared  with  the  representations  found 
in  the  other  three.  In  the  synoptical  Gospels,  Christ 
utters  either  brief,  sententious  apothegms,  or  parables ; 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE. 


97 


while  in  the  fourth  Gospel  we  have  extended  dialogues 
and  long  discourses  in  quite  a  different  vein.  Other 
minor  points  of  difference  might  be  mentioned,  but 
these  which  we  have  named  are  of  chief  importance. 

Before  we  proceed  to  consider  in  detail  the  bear¬ 
ing  of  these  peculiarities  of  John  upon  the  main 
question  before  us,  we  offer  one  preliminary  remark. 
The  more  serious  the  difference  between  the  contents 
of  the  synoptical  Gospels  and  of  John,  the  greater  is 
the  difficulty  to  be  met  by  the  opponents  of  the  genu¬ 
ineness  of  the  latter.  For  how  could  a  Gospel  which 
so  runs  athwart  the  accepted  views  of  the  life  and 
teaching  of  Christ,  be  brought  forward  and  gain  cre¬ 
dence  unless  it  were  known  to  have  the  sanction 
of  an  apostle  ?  The  later  the  date  assigned  to 
the  Gospel,  the  greater  is  the  difficulty.  What  motive 
for  a  forger,  fabricating  his  work  long  after  the 
apostolic  age,  to  depart  from  the  traditional  and  certi¬ 
fied  conception  of  Christ’s  life  and  teaching?  And 
supposing  him  to  have  a  motive  to  do  this,  how  could 
he  succeed  ?  These  are  questions  to  which  the  oppo¬ 
nents  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospel  find  it  impossi¬ 
ble  to  give  any  satisfactory  answer.  Even  if  they 
were  to  show  that  the  contrast  between  John  and  the 
synoptical  histories  almost  amounts  to  an  incompat¬ 
ibility,  they  only  increase  thereby  the  difficulty  of 
solving  the  problem  we  have  suggested.  What  in¬ 
ducement  had  a  writer  of  the  second  century  to 

deviate,  without  necessity,  and  to  so  extraordinary 
1 


98 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 


an  extent,  from  the  long  prevalent  and  authorized  view 
of  the  Saviour’s  life  ?  And  how  was  the  Church  per¬ 
suaded  to  accept  this  new  version  of  his  career  ? 
Such  is  the  hard  problem  presented  to  the  skeptical 
critic.  On  the  contrary,  if  it  can  be  made  to  appear 
on  a  careful  investigation,,  that,  in  these  very  particu¬ 
lars  which  are  made  the  ground  of  objection,  the 
fourth  Gospel  unquestionably  presents  historical  truth; 
that  incidentally  it  supplements  the  other  three  just 
where  they  need  explanation ;  and  especially  that  this 
Gospel  alone  presents  a  consecutive  and  connected 
view  of  the  life  of  Christ,  we  have  gone  far  toward 
establishing  its  apostolic  authorship.  We  have  not 
only  obviated  the  principal  objection ;  we  have  also 
furnished  a  positive  and  convincing  argument  on 
the  other  side.  Its  historical  peculiarities,  so  far  from 
being  a  fatal  objection  against,  will  be  seen  to  be 
a  conclusive  argument  for,  its  genuineness.  Only  an 
apostle  could  have  thrown  this  flood  of  light  upon  the 
course  of  events  in  the  life  of  Christ.  Only  an 
apostle  could  have  brought  to  the  support  of  his 
narrative  an  authority  sufficient  to  obtain  for  it  cre¬ 
dence.  We  shall  be  obliged  to  notice  with  brevity 
the  various  considerations  connected  with  the  present 
topic. 

1.  The  journeys  of  Christ  to  Jerusalem  and 
his  ministry  there.  Tor  reasons  which  we  cannot 
with  certainty  determine,  the  synoptical  Gospels  con¬ 
fine  themselves  to  the  Galilean  ministry.  The  ques- 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE. 


99 


tion  is :  Have  we  ground  for  concluding,  independently 
of  John,  that  Jesus  had  repeatedly  visited  that  city 
and  labored  there  ?  The  synoptical  Gospels  say  noth¬ 
ing  inconsistent  with  his  having  done  so  ;  they  are 
simply  silent  upon  the  subject.  It  would  certainly  be 
more  natural  to  suppose  that  Jesus  who  claimed  to  be 
the  Messiah,  even  if  his  ministry  had  continued  but  a 
year,  would  during  this  time  have  gone  up  to  Jerusa¬ 
lem,  both  as  an  act  of  compliance  with  the  law  and  as 
a  means  of  gaining  access  to  such  a  multitude  as  the 
festivals  brought  together.  It  is  not  easy  to  account 
for  the  fanatical  hatred  of  the  Pharisees  in  Jeru¬ 
salem  towards  him,  if  we  suppose  that  he  had  never 
crossed  their  path,  save  in  casual  encounters  with 
them  away  from  Jerusalem,  in  Galilee. 

Various  facts  mentioned  in  the  synoptical  Gospels 
seem  to  presuppose  such  previous  labors  on  his  part 
in  the  capital.  Thus  Joseph  of  Arimathea,  a  member 
of  the  Sanhedrim,  is  said,  in  the  synoptical  Gospels, 
to  be  a  disciple  of  Jesus  (Matt,  xxvii.  57  seq. ;  Luke 
xxiii.  50  seq. ;  Mark  xv.  42  seq.) ;  but  Joseph  was  a 
resident  of  Jerusalem,  having,  as  we  are  told,  a 
tomb  there.  There,  it  is  probable,  he  became  ac¬ 
quainted  with  Christ.  Again,  we  learn  from  Luke 
(x.  38  seq.)  that  Jesus  stood  in  such  intimate 
relations  with  the  family  of  Martha  and  Mary,  as 
imply  a  previous  stay  in  that  neighborhood  prior 
to  this  last  visit.  But  we  are  happily  furnished  with 
a  conclusive  proof  of  the  Saviour’s  repeated  visits 


100  GENUINENESS  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 

to  Jerusalem,  in  the  lamentation  he  uttered  over 
the  city,  as  recorded  by  both  Matthew  and  Luke 
(Luke  xiii.  34  seq. ;  Matt,  xxiii.  37  seq.) :  f h qovou- 
XiyLi,  cfc()ov6a?ir)jU  ....  noodxcg  smowd^cu 

rd  tsxva  oov  ....  xcii  ovx  r^th/jOars,  x.r.'k. 

Baur  would  make  it  out  that  the  whole  Jewish 
people  are  apostrophized  under  the  term  “  Jerusalem/’ 
as  the  centre  and  home  of  the  nation.  This  interpre¬ 
tation  seems  improbable,  when  we  remember  that 
when  the  Saviour  uttered  these  words  he  was  gazing 
upon  the  city.  It  is  demonstrated  to  be  false  by  the 
context  in  Luke.  Immediately  before,  in  the  preced¬ 
ing  verse,  the  Saviour  says:  “for  it  cannot  be  that 
a  projpl Let  perish  out  of  Jerusalem .” 

It  may  be  well  to  notice  the  last  device  of  inter¬ 
pretation,  by  which  Strauss  struggles  to  avoid  the 
inevitable  inference  to  be  drawn  from  this  passage.1 
We  notice  his  new  hypothesis  more  willingly,  because 
it  offers  so  fair  an  illustration  of  his  general  method 
of  criticism.  “This  expression,”  says  Strauss,  “can 
Jesus  least  of  all  have  used  where  Luke  puts  it, 
on  his  journey  to  Jerusalem,  and  before  he  had 
once  during  the  period  of  his  public  activity  seen  that 
city.  But  even  in  Jerusalem  itself,  after  a  single  *stay 
there  of  only  a  few  days,  he  cannot  have  pointed  out 
how  often  he  had  attempted  in  vain  to  draw  its 
inhabitants  to  himself.  Here  all  shifts ” — such  as 


1  Leben  Jesu  far  das  deutsche  Voile ,  s.  249. 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE. 


101 


that  of  Baur,  noticed  above — “  are  futile ,  and  it  must 
be  confessed  :  if  these  are  really  the  words  of  Christ, 
he  must  have  labored  in  Jerusalem  oftener  and  longer 
than  would  appear  from  the  synoptical  reports.” 
Now,  the  reader  will  ask,  how  is  this  conclusion  to  be 
escaped?  Nothing  more  easy.  “These  are  not  his 
words,”  says  Strauss.  It  is  true  that  Matthew  gives 
them  as  such,  in  connection  with  the  other  decla¬ 
ration  :  “wherefore,  behold,  I  send  unto  you  prophets, 
and  wise  men,  and  scribes,  and  some  of  them  ye  shall 
kill  and  crucify/’  etc.  But  this  last  expression,  as 
quoted  by  (Luke  xi.  49  seq.),  is  disconnected  from 
the  apostrophe  to  Jerusalem,  which  is  found  later, 
in  c.  xiii.  34,  35.  And  that  expression  concerning 
the  rejection  of  the  divine  messengers,  though  occur¬ 
ring  in  the  midst  of  a  discourse  of  Christ,  is  intro¬ 
duced  bv  Luke  with  the  words  :  “  therefore  also  said 
%/ 

the  wisdom  of  God.”  On  these  data,  Strauss  sets  up 
the  theory  that  the  whole  passage,  as  found  in 
Matthew,  is  a  quotation  from  some  lost  Christian 
book  written  about  the  time  of  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem,  in  which  the  personified  wisdom  of  God 
was  represented  as  speaking !  It  is  interesting  to 
mark  the  process  by  which  he  arrives  at  this  conclu¬ 
sion.  Matthew  is  held  to  be  right  in  conjoining  the 
two  expressions,  and  Luke  wrong  in  separating  them. 
But  Matthew  is  wrong  in  leaving  out  the  intro¬ 
ductory  words :  “  therefore  also  saith  the  wisdom  of 
God.”  Luke,  again,  is  wrong  in  not  connecting  both 


I 


102  GENUINENESS  OE  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 

expressions  with  this  formula,  and  in  making  the 
apostrophe  to  Jerusalem  to  be  the  words  of  Christ 
himself.  Why  Matthew,  whom  Strauss  elsewhere  pro¬ 
nounces  altogether  the  best  authority,  especially  in 
regard  to  the  discourses  of  Christ/  should  leave 
out  the  formula  of  citation,  and  attribute  to  Jesus 
words  extracted  from  the  supposed  lost  book,  is 
indeed  a  difficulty.  Strauss  says  that  it  was  owing  to 
the  singularity — setts amh eit — of  this  formula  !  Why 
Luke  should  attribute  to  Christ  himself  the  words 
of  lamentation  over  Jerusalem,  when  they  stood  con¬ 
nected  with  the  passage  relative  to  divine  messengers 
in  a  booh  that  did  not  purport  to  he  a  record  of  the 
words  of  Christ ,  is  another  unexplained  circumstance. 
It  is  plain  that  Strauss  credits,  or  discredits,  each 
evangelist,  in  an  entirely  arbitrary  manner,  in  order 
to  meet  the  exigencies  of  a  theory.  The  apostrophe 
to  Jerusalem  must  be  regarded  as  the  outpouring 
of  Christ’s  own  feeling  and  as  uttered  by  him.  Both 
evangelists  explicitly  declare  this.  And  apart  from 
the  considerations  already  mentioned,  the  conclusion 
of  the  passage  has  no  propriety  unless  it  were  spoken 
by  Jesus :  “  for  I  say  unto  you,  ye  shall  not  see 
me  henceforth,  till  ye  say,  Blessed  is  he  that  cometh 
in  the  name  of  the  Lord.”  In  the  passage  (Luke 
xi.  49)  :  “therefore  also  saith  the  wisdom  of  God,” 
the  last  phrase  probably  denotes  Jesus  himself,  and 
may  have  been  attached  in  current  speech  to  this  cita- 

1  Lebcn  Jesu  far  d.  deutsche  Volk ,  s.  115. 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE. 


103 


tion  of  his  words.  Hence  Luke  takes  it  up  into  his 
report.1 

The  apostrophe  to  Jerusalem  proves,  therefore, 
that  Jesus  had  again  and  again  preached  in  that  city 
and  labored  to  convert  its  inhabitants.  The  fourth 
Gospel  is  incidentally  but  convincingly  sustained 
in  attributing  a  prolonged  ministry  to  Christ  and 
repeated  labors  at  Jerusalem,  by  the  synoptical  Gospels 
themselves.  But  suppose  a  writer  in  the  second 
century  to  have  set  himself  to  the  work  of  composing 
a  fictitious  gospel  for  the  purpose  of  indirectly  inculca¬ 
ting  a  dogmatic  system  of  his  own  ;  how  certain  that 
he  would  have  adhered  to  the  traditional  view  of 
the  course  of  the  Saviour’s  ministry !  By  giving  it  a 
longer  duration,  and  introducing  visits  to  Jerusalem 
and  labors  there  not  mentioned  by  the  received 
Gospels,  he  would  only  invite  suspicion  and  expose 
himself  to  detection.  No  advantage  could  be  con¬ 
ceived  to  follow  such  a  wide  departure  from  the 
prevalent  conception,  which  would  not  be  immeasura¬ 
bly  outweighed  by  the  certain  disadvantages  and  perils 


1  This  is  the  opinion  of  Neander  and  Meyer.  Strauss  is  not  so 
original  as  he  claims  to  he,  in  this  piece  of  interpretation.  Baur, 
after  suggesting  his  own  explanation,  of  which  we  have  spoken 
above,  remarks  in  a  note  that  if  this  interpretation  is  unacceptable, 
then  the  lament  over  Jerusalem  may  be  taken  as  the  words  of  some 
(unknown)  prophet,  which  in  this  definite  form  were  (fictitiously)  put 
into  the  mouth  of  Christ.  See  Baur’s  Kanon.  Evang .,  s.  127.  In 
plainer  language:  if  you  cannot  explain  away  the  meaning  of  the 
passage,  deny  that  Christ  said  it ! 


104  GENUINENESS  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 

attending  it.  It  must  Lave  been,  then,  from  a  regard 
to  historical  truth  and  from  a  knowledge  of  the  facts, 
that  the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel  has  so  construct¬ 
ed  his  history.  And  this  author,  whoever  he  was, 
had  an  authority  with  Christians  so  great  as  to  enable 
him  to  vary  thus  widely,  without  the  imputation  of 
error,  from  the  prevalent  tradition. 

The  more  the  general  plan  of  the  fourth  Gospel 
is  examined,  the  more  is  it  seen  to  rest  upon  the  solid 
foundation  of  historical  verity.  The  progress  of  events 
in  the  life  of  Jesus,  from  the  beginning  onward  to 
the  final  result,  is  clearly  understood  from  this  Gospel. 
We  see  how  it  came  to  pass  that  though  “  he  came  to 
his  own,  his  own  received  him  not.”  The  vacillation 
of  the  people,  now  turning  in  his  favor,  and  now,  as 
he  disappointed  their  expectations,  turning  against 
him,  together  with  the  origin  and  growth  of  the  im¬ 
placable  hostility  of  the  Jewish  leaders,  are  made 
entirety  comprehensible. 

And  the  fourth  Gospel  alone  gives  an  adequate 
explanation  of  the  way  in  which  the  catastrophe  was 
brought  on.  We  see  how  the  consequences  of  the 
raising  of  Lazarus  obliged  the  Pharisees  to  proceed  at 
once  to  the  most  decisive  measures  against  Jesus.  It 
was  this  event,  and  the  effect  of  it  upon  the  minds  of 
the  people,  that  precipitated  the  result.  In  regard  to 
this  closing  portion  of  Christ’s  life,  we  have  in  John 
the  clue  to  the  solution  of  what  is  left,  in  part,  unsolved 
in  the  other  Gospels.  Even  Renan  finds  that  “  the  last 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE. 


105 


months  of  the  life  of  Jesus  in  particular  are  explained 
only  by  John.” 1  A  narrative  is  commended  to 
credence  by  being  thus  consistent  and  intelligible. 
The  same  distinction,  the  same  verisimilitude,  belongs 
to  the  account  of  the  Saviour’s  resurrection,  a  section 
of  the  history  in  which  the  synoptical  Gospels  are  espe¬ 
cially  fragmentary.  In  John  we  have  a  view,  as  clear 
and  coherent  as  it  is  artless  and  natural,  of  the  trans¬ 
actions  that  followed  his  reappearance  from  the  tomb. 

2.  In  considering  the  credibility  of  the  fourth 
Gospel,  as  this  question  is  affected  by  a  comparison  of 
its  matter  with  the  contents  of  the  other  three,  we 
have  to  notice  the  difficulty  and  apparent  discrepancy 
upon  the  date  of  the  crucifixion,  and  also  the  paschal 
controversies  of  the  second  century,  in  their  bearing 
upon  this  point  of  chronology. 

It  is  well  known  to  every  student  of  the  Gospels 
that  there  is  difficulty  in  reconciling  the  statement  of 
the  first  three,  respecting  the  date  of  the  last  supper, 
and  consequently  respecting  the  date  of  the  death  of 
Christ,  with  the  statement  of  John.  All  the  evangelists 
agree  as  to  the  day  of  the  week — that  the  supper  was 
on  Thursday  evening,  and  the  crucifixion  on  the  next 
or  Triday  morning.  The  synoptical  Gospels,,  however, 
appear  to  place  the  last  supper  in  the  evening  when 
the  Jews  ate  the  passover-meal ;  i.  e.  on  the  evening 
of  the  14th  Nisan,  or,  according  to  the  Jewish  reckon- 


1  Renan,  Vie  de  Jesus ,  p.  xxxiii. 


106 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 


mg,  the  beginning  of  the  15th  Nisan.  The  fourth 
Gospel,  on  the  other  hand,  appears  to  place  the  last 
meal  of  Jesus  with  the  disciples  on  the  evening  before 
the  passover-supper  of  the  Jews ;  i.  e.  on  the  13th,  or, 
according  to  the  Jewish  reckoning,  the  14th,  Nisan, 
and  the  crucifixion  on  the  morning  immediately  before, 
instead  of  after,  this  Jewish  festival. 

The  Tubingen  critics  regard  the  two  representations 
as  really  inconsistent  and  irreconcilable  ;  and  on  this 
ground,  as  they  hold  that  the  fourth  Gospel  is  incor¬ 
rect,  they  maintain  that  it  could  not  have  proceeded 
from  John.  If  the  two  representations  can  be  fairly 
harmonized  with  each  other,  of  course  their  argument 
vanishes  with  the  foundation  on  which  it  is  built. 
Without  pronouncing  judgment  on  the  various  modes 
which  have  been  proposed  by  Dr.  Robinson  and  other 
harmonists  for  reconciling  the  two  accounts,  let  us  con¬ 
sider  the  effect,  as  regards  the  credibility  and  genu¬ 
ineness  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  of  admitting  that  the 
discrepancy  is  real  and  irremovable.  The  diversity  of 
the  principles  of  criticism  which  are  adopted  by  the 
major  part  of  the  able  defenders  of  supernatural 
Christianity  and  evangelical  doctrine  in  Germany,  from 
those  in  vogue  among  us,  is  remarkably  exemplified  by 
their  treatment  of  the  particular  question  before  us. 
Not  only  do  Neander,  Bleek,  Meyer,  and  others  hardly 
less  distinguished,  coincide  with  their  adversaries  in 
admitting  that  the  discrepancy  is  irremovable ;  but 
Bleek  builds  upon  it  an  earnest  argument  for  the 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE. 


107 


credibility  and  apostolic  authorship  of  John.1  He 
insists,  with  much  force,  upon  the  improbability  that  a 
writer  in  the  second  century,  who  wished  to  be  con¬ 
sidered  an  apostle,  would  contradict  the  three  Gospels 
and  the  accepted  tradition  of  the  Church,  on  such  a 
point  as  the  date  of  the  last  supper  and  of  the  cruci¬ 
fixion.  Who  but  an  apostle,  or  one  thoroughly 
acquainted  with  the  facts,  would  think  of  making  him¬ 
self  responsible  for  such  a  deviation  ?  Who,  but  an 
apostle,  could  hope  to  be  believed  P  In  a  word,  how 
extremely  unnatural  that  a  forger  should  think  of 
assigning  another  date  to  these  leading  facts  in  the 
evangelical  history  !  Bleek,  also,  endeavors  to,  show 
that  the  supposition  that  the  crucifixion  took  place  on 
the  morning  before  the  passover-lamb  was  eaten,  is 
corroborated  by  incidental  statements  in  the  synoptical 
Gospels  themselves,2  as  well  as  by  all  the  probabilities 
in  the  case ;  so  that  the  accuracy  of  the  fourth  Gospel, 
in  this  particular,  is  established,  and  thus  a  strong 
argument  is  furnished  for  its  general  credibility.3 


1  It  should  be  stated  that  these  critics  do  not  consider  the  first 
Gospel,  in  its  present  form,  to  emanate  from  the  Apostle  Matthew. 
See  Meander’s  Leben  Jesu ,  s.  10.  Bleek’s  Einl .,  s.  8S  seq.  The  first 
Gospel  is  held  to  stand  in  substantially  the  same  relation  to  the 
apostles  as  the  other  two  ;  and  the  historical  position  of  all  three  is 
indicated  in  Luke  i.  1,  2 ;  i.  e.  they  record  the  things  which  were 
delivered  to  their  writers  by  eyewitnesses.  It  is  not  the  eyewitnesses 
themselves,  hut  those  to  whom  they  spoke. 

2  Matt.  xxvi.  5,  xxvii.  59  seq. ;  Mark  xv.  42,  46  ;  Luke  xxiii.  56. 

3  Ellicott,  in  his  Life  of  Christ  (Am.  Ed.  p.  292,  NT.  3)  considers 


108 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 


The  opponents  of  the  genuineness  of  John  attempt 
to  draw  a  support  for  their  cause  from  the  paschal  con¬ 
troversies  of  the  second  century.  These  arose  from  a 
difference  in  practice  in  regard  to  a  certain  festival 
celebrated  about  the  time  of  the  Jewish  passover. 
There  was  discussion  on  this  difference,  in  which  the 
churches  of  Asia  Minor  were  opposed  by  the  church  of 
Rome,  on  the  occasion  of  Polycarp’s  visit  to  Anicetus 
of  Rome  about  the  year  160;  then  ten  years  later,  in 
which  Claudius  Apollinaris,  bishop  of  Hierapolis,  and 
Melito  of  Sardes,  took  part ;  and  especially  at  the  end 
of  the  second  century,  when  Victor,  bishop  of  Rome, 
proposed  to  break  off  fellowship  with  the  Asia  Minor 
bishops  on  account  of  their  refusal  to  abandon  their 
ancient  custom.  In  these  controversies,  and  in  the 
defence  of  their  practice,  the  Asia  Minor  bishops  were 
in  the  habit  of  appealing  to  the  authority  of  the  Apostle 
John,  who  had  lived  in  the  midst  of  them. 

Everything  turns  upon  ascertaining  the  real  point 
of  difference  and  the  real  character  of  the  Asia  Minor 
observance.  So  much  is  certain,  that  this  observance, 
whatever  may  have  been  its  origin  or  significance, 
occurred  on  the  evening  of  the  14th,  or,  in  the  Jewish 
reckoning,  the  beginning  of  the  15th,  Nisan.  Baur 

that  no  other  interpretation  of  John  is  admissible  hut  that  which 
places  the  last  supper  on  the  evening  before  the  usual  passover-meal 
of  the  Jews.  “The  statements,”  says  Ellicott,  “  are  so  clear,  that  to 
attempt,  with  Wieseler  ( Ghron .  Synops .),  Robinson  (Bib.  Sacra  for 
Aug.  1845),  to  explain  them  away,  must  he  regarded  as  arbitrary  and 
hopeless.”  See  John  xiii.  1,  29,  xviii.  28,  xix.  31. 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE. 


109 


holds  that  it  was  established  as  a  commemoration  of 
the  last  supper,  the  passover-meal  of  Jesus  with  his 
disciples;  and  hence  infers  that  John,  whose  authority 
supported  the  Asia  Minor  observance,  could  not  have 
written  the  account  of  the  last  supper  in  our  fourth 
Gospel. 

But  Baur’s  argument  is  on  a  foundation  of  sand. 
It  is  clear,  from  the  earliest  discussions  on  the  subject, 
that  the  difference  did  not  consist  in  a  diverse  mode  of 
observing  the  same  festival ;  but  that  in  Asia  Minor 
there  teas  a  festival  which  did  not  exist  at  Home.  This 
commemoration  was  on  the  14th  Nisan,  on  whatever 
day  of  the  week  it  might  fall;  whence  the  adherents 
of  the  Asia  Minor  custom  were  called  Quartodecimani, 
while  Occidental  Christians  observed  Triday  and  Sun¬ 
day  of  each  week  as  the  days,  respectively,  of  the 
Lord’s  death  and  resurrection.  A  day  was  observed 
by  the  Asia  Minor  Christians  which  was  not  observed 
at  Rome.  Nor  is  there  any  probability  that  the  Asia 
Minor  festival  was  established  as  a  commemoration  of 
the  last  supper. 

There  are  two  views  as  to  the  origin  of  their 
festival.  It  was  the  final  view  of  Neander,  and  is  the 
opinion  of  Meyer  and  Schneider,  that  it  commemorated 
the  death  of  Christ — the  sacrifice  of  the  true  paschal 
Lamb,  of  which  the  Mosaic  paschal  lamb  was  the  type 
(1  Cor.  v.  7  ;  John  xix.  36).  If  this  be  the  fact,  the 
festival  accords  with  the  supposed  chronology  of  J ohn’s 
Gospel.  The  fragment  of  Apollinaris  has  been  sup- 


110 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 


posed  to  connect  the  Asia  Minor  festival  with  the  last 
supper,  and  to  defend  the  correctness  of  the  day  of  its 
observance  by  an  appeal  to  Matthew.  But  Schneider 
forcibly  argues  that  Apollinaris  is  reporting,  not  his 
own  view,  which  was  that  of  the  Quartodecimani,  but 
the  view  of  a  smaller  party  of  Judaizers,  from  which 
he  dissents  ;  so  that  Apollinaris  (as  also  the  fragment 
of  Hippolytus)  is  really  a  witness  to  the  agreement  of 
the  Quartodecimani  with  the  chronology  of  the  fourth 
Gospel.  The  other  hypothesis  concerning  the  design 
of  the  Asia  Minor  festival,  is  that  of  Bleek,  De  Wette, 
and  others,  who  consider  this  festival  to  have  been 
originally  the  Jewish  passover,  which  the  Jewish  con¬ 
verts  at  Ephesus  and  elsewhere  had  continued  to 
observe,  and  with  which  in  their  minds  Christian  ideas 
and  associations  were  more  and  more  connected.  In 
particular,  there  was  naturally  associated  with  it  the 
recollection  of  the  last  supper  of  Jesus  with  the  dis¬ 
ciples.  There  was  no  such  reference  originally  con¬ 
nected  with  the  festival,  nor  did  this  association  of  it 
with  the  last  supper  grow  up  until  long  after  the  death 
of  John.  This  apostle  did  not  interfere  with  a  com¬ 
memoration  which  he  found  established  in  Ephesus 
and  other  places  in  that  region.  Bleek  shows  that  the 
theory  of  an*  original  reference  of  the  Asia  Minor 
festival  to  the  last  supper  would  imply  an  earlier  origin 
of  the  yearly  Christian  festivals  than  we  have  any 
reason  to  think  belonged  to  them.  It  is  not  inconsist¬ 
ent  with  Bleek’s  general  view,  to  adopt  Schneider’s 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE. 


Ill 


interpretation  of  Apollinaris,  in  which  case  even  this 
writer  affords  no  proof  of  an  association  by  the  Quarto- 
decimani  of  their  festival  with  the  Saviour’s  last  sup¬ 
per.  This  hypothesis  relative  to  the  character  of  their 
commemoration,  that  it  was  at  the  outset  simply  the 
Jewish  passover,  which  in  Rome,  and  in  other  churches 
where  the  Gentiles  were  more  predominant,  was  not 
kept  up,  appears  to  us  to  be  best  supported.  In  any 
case,  the  charge  that  a  contradiction  exists  between  the 
early  Asia  Minor  tradition  concerning  John’s  testimony 
and  the  chronology  of  the  fourth  Gospel  is  without 
foundation. 

4.  The  discourses  of  Christ  in  the  fourth  Gospel. 
These  have  been  used  as  an  argument  against  the 
apostolic  origin  of  this  Gospel :  an  argument  founded 
on  their  inherent  character ;  their  relation,  both  as  to 
form  and  matter,  to  the  teaching  of  Christ  recorded  by 
the  synoptical  evangelists  ;  the  portraiture  of  Christ 
which  they  convey  ;  their  fitness  to  the  circumstances 
under  which  they  are  alleged  to  have  been  spoken ; 
their  uniformity,  both  with  each  other  and  with  the 
expressions  of  other  characters  in  the  Gospel,  as  well  as 
with  those  of  the  author  himself.1 

Under  this  head  we  shall  chiefly  follow  Bleek, 
regretting,  however,  that  we  are  under  the  necessity  of 
abridging  his  excellent  suggestions. 

That  the  discourses  of  Christ  in  John  stand  in 
contrast,  in  important  respects,  with  his  teaching  in  the 


1  Bleek,  s.  194. 


112  GENUINENESS  OE  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 

\ 

other  Gospels,  is  not  denied.  The  first  question  is, 
whether  the  contrast  is  so  great  that  both  styles  of 
teaching  could  not  belong  to  the  same  person.  Here 
Bleek  pertinently  refers  to  the  case  of  Socrates,  and  to 
the  opinion  that  is  coming  to  prevail,  that  the  repre¬ 
sentation  in  Plato  has  much  more  of  truth  than  was 
formerly  supposed  ;  an  opinion  held  by  such  men  as 
Schleiermacher,  Brandis,  and  Bitter,  and  commended 
by  the  apparent  necessity  of  supposing  a  more  specula¬ 
tive  element  in  the  teaching  of  Socrates  than  Xenophon 
exhibits,  if  we  would  account  for  the  schools  of 
speculative  philosophy  that  took  their  rise  from  him. 
He  must  have  had  another  side  than  that  which  we 
discern  in  Xenophon’s  record.1  How  much  easier  is 
this  to  be  supposed  in  the  case  of  Him  who  was  to  act 
effectually  upon  every  variety  of  mind  and  character! 
How  natural  and  inevitable  that  each  of  his  disciples 
should  apprehend  Christ  from  his  own  point  of  view, 
according  to  the  measure  of  his  own  individuality ;  so 
that  for  the  understanding  of  Christ  in  his  fulness,  we 
have  to  combine  these  various,  but  not  incongruous, 
representations  of  him. 

But,  as  in  a  former  instance,  Ave  find  in  the  synop¬ 
tical  writers  proof  that  the  fourth  Gospel,  in  the 

1  Whoever  will  examine  cc.  ix.  and  x.  of  the  fourth  Book  of  the 
Memorabilia,  will  see  that  these  are  fragmentary  specimens  from 
another  vein  than  that  which  furnishes  to  Xenophon  most  of  his 
reports.  A  like  feeling  is  produced  when  we  compare  the  last 
chapter  of  the  Mem.  with  Plato.  Socrates  must  have  said  much 
more,  in  this  closing  period,  than  Xenophon  has  recorded. 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE. 


113 


character  of  the  discourses  attributed  to  Christ,  does 
not  depart  from  historical  truth.  As  to  their  form,  we 
are  told,  especially  in  Matt.  xiii.  10  seq.,  that  the 
Saviour,  at  least  in  discoursing  to  the  disciples,  did  not 
confine  himself  to  the  gnomes  and  parables  ;  that  he 
spake  thus  to  the  people  on  account  of  the  dulness  of 
their  understanding,  while  to  the  disciples  it  was  “  given 
to  know  the  mysteries  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven.” 
The  statements  (Matt.  xiii.  34  ;  Mark  iv.  34)  that  he 
never  spake  to  the  people  save  in  parables,  are  of 
course  of  a  general  character,  and,  fairly  interpreted, 
are  not  inconsistent  with  his  addressing  the  people  at 
times  in  accordance  with  the  reports  of  John.  Occa¬ 
sionally  in  the  synoptical  Gospels,  moreover,  we  meet 
with  expressions  of  Jesus  in  striking  consonance  with 
his  style  in  the  Johannean  discourses,  and  thus  giving 
us  a  glimpse  of  another  manner  of  teaching  which  the 
synoptical  writers  sparingly  report.  The  most  remark¬ 
able  example  is  Matt.  xi.  25  seq.  (compare  Luke  xi.  21 
seq.),  the  ejaculation  of  Jesus,  beginning:  “I  thank 
thee,  0  Lather,  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth,  because 
thou  hast  hid  these  things  from  the  wise  and  prudent, 
and  hast  revealed  them  unto  babes.  Even  so,  Lather, 
for  so  it  seemed  good  in  thy  sight.”  How  perfectly  in 
harmony  with  the  style  of  Jesus  in  the  latter  part  of 
John ! 1 

1  In  John,  also,  examples  of  the  aphoristic  style,  such  as  prevails 
in  the  synoptical  reports  of  the  teaching  of  Christ,  are  not  wanting. 
See  John  xii.  24,  26 ;  xiii.  16,  20. 

8 


114  GENUINENESS  OE  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 

As  to  the  contents  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  it  is 
freely  granted  that  the  higher  nature  of  Christ  and 
the  relation  of  the  Son  to  the  Father  are  here  a  much 
more  predominant  theme.  Essentially  the  same  con¬ 
ception  of  Christ,  however,  is  found  in  the  first  three 
Gospels.  In  them  he  is  the  Son  of  God,  in  a  higher 
than  any  official  sense :  he  is  the  judge  of  the  world. 
And  in  several  passages,  we  find  him  claiming  the 
lofty  attributes  given  him  in  John,  and  in  the  same 
style.  Thus  in  Matt.  xi.  27  he  says :  “  All  things 
are  delivered  to  me  of  my  Father ;  and  no  man 
Jcnoioeth  the  Son  hut  the  Father ;  neither  hioivetlb  any 
man  the  Father  save  the  Son,  and  he  to  whom  the 
Son  loill  reveal  him This  mutual  knowledge,  ex¬ 
clusive,  superhuman,  and  perfect,  on  the  part  of  the 
Son  and  the  Father,  is  affirmed  here  in  the  peculiar 
manner  of  the  fourth  Gospel.  In  Matt.  xxii.  41  seq. 
(compare  Mark  xii.  35  seq. ;  Luke  xx.  41  seq.)  we 
have  a  plain  suggestion  of  the  fact  of  his  pre-existence. 

The  objection  that  the  discourses  of  Christ  in 
John  have  a  close  resemblance  to  the  style  of  the 
evangelist  himself  and  to  that  of  his  first  Epistle,  is 
obviated  when  we  remember  that,  as  a  result  of  his 
peculiar  relation  to  Christ,  the  Saviour’s  mode  of 
expression  would  naturally  be  taken  up ;  that  we 
are  under  no  necessity  of  supposing  that  he  aimed 
to  give  a  verbally  accurate  report  of  the  Master’s 
teaching;  and  that  some  freedom  as  to  style  is  un¬ 
avoidable  in  abbreviating  and  selecting  the  portions 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE. 


115 


of  his  discourse  for  which  there  was  a  place  in  so 
brief  a  work.  All  this,  as  well  as  that  thorough 
inward  digestion  and  assimilation,  on  the  part  of 
the  evangelist,  of  the  Saviour’s  discourses,  which 
were  consequent  on  the  length  of  time  that  had 
elapsed  since  they  were  heard,  will  account  for  the 
peculiarity  in  question,  without  impairing  in  the 
slightest  degree  the  historical  truth  and  substantial 
accuracy  of  the  Johannean  reports. 

The  falsehood  of  the  assertion  that  these  dis¬ 
courses  are  fictitious  and  put  into  the  mouth  of  Jesus 
by  the  writer,  after  the  manner  of  ancient  Greek 
and  Roman  historians,  is  evinced  in  particular  by 
certain  briefer  expressions  which  are  interspersed  in 
them,  and  which  admit  of  no  explanation  except  on 
the  supposition  that  the  reports  are  faithful.  A 
signal  example  is  John  xiv.  31,  where,  in  the  midst 
of  a  long  discourse  to  the  disciples,  occur  the  words : 
“  Arise,  let  us  go  hence !  ” 1  They  are  not  followed 
by  any  intimation  that  the  company  actually  arose 
and  left  the  place  where  they  were.  On  the  con¬ 
trary,  the  discourse  goes  on,  in  the  words  :  “  I  am 
the  true  vine,”  etc.  But  if  we  suppose  what  follows 
to  have  been  spoken  by  the  way ;  or,  which  is  per¬ 
haps  more  natural,  if  we  suppose  that  having  spoken 
the  words  first  quoted  which  summoned  the  disciples 
to  quit  the  place  where  they  were,  the  Saviour’s 


1  eyetpeoSe,  uycofxev  tvTtv’Stv. 


116  GENUINENESS  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 

interest  in  his  theme  and  love  for  them  led  him  to 
go  on  still  longer,  while,  it  may  be,  they  all  remained 
standing,  then  these  words  have  a  proper  place  and 
meaning.  The  circumstance  would  imprint  itself 
on  the  recollection  of  John,  and  it  affords  an  impres¬ 
sive  proof  of  his  fidelity  in  reporting  his  Master’s 
discourses.  But  no  reason  can  be  given  why  a  forger 
should  have  introduced  this  fragmentary,  unexplained 
phrase.  Had  he  chosen  to  interrupt  the  discourse 
by  such  a  phrase,  he  would  infallibly  have  added  some 
other  statement,  such  as :  then  they  arose  and  went. 
This  little  phrase,  to  a  candid  reader,  is  a  most 
convincing  item  of  evidence.  Bleek  also  dwells  upon 
the  character  of  the  prophetic  utterances  of  Christ 
in  John,  especially  of  the  predictions  relative  to  his 
own  death.  The  fact  that  they  are  in  the  form  of 
intimations,  rather  than  distinct  declarations,  will 
better  account,  in  the  view  of  Bleek,  for  the  misun¬ 
derstanding  of  them  on  the  part  of  the  disciples.  The 
form  in  which  they  appear  in  John  wears,  in  his 
opinion,  the  stamp  of  historical  truth,  since  it  is 
altogether  probable  that  in  this  form  they  were 
actually  spoken.  Especially,  as  Bleek  thinks,  is  the 
historical  fidelity  of  the  evangelist  shown  by  those 
passages  from  Christ  upon  which  the  evangelist  puts 
his  own  interpretation,  drawn  from  an  observation 
of  the  subsequent  event.  Such  are  John  ii.  19: 
“  destroy  this  temple,  and  in  three  days  I  will  raise 
it  again,”  where  we  are  told  that  the  obscure  reference 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE. 


117 


to  the  temple  of  his  body  was  discerned  by  his  disci¬ 
ples  not  till  after  the  resurrection ;  and  John  xii.  32 : 
“  and  I,  if  I  be  lifted  up  from  the  earth,  will  draw 
all  men  unto  me,”  to  which  the  evangelist  appends 
a  similar  explanation.  There  can  be  no  doubt  in 
these  instances  that  the  apostle  has  faithfully  reported 
the  sayings  of  Jesus ;  and  this  fact  must  be  even 
more  evident  to  those  critics  who  do  not  hesitate 
to  question,  in  these  cases,  the  perfect  correctness  of 
the  disciples’  interpretation. 

5.  The  Hellenic  culture  and  the  theological  point 
of  view  of  the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel  are  made 
an  objection  to  the  Johannean  authorship.  They 
prove,  it  is  maintained,  that  the  work  does  not  belong 
to  the  apostolic  age,  was  not  written  either  by  a 
Palestinian  or  by  any  other  Jew,  but  by  a  Gentile 
Christian  of  the  second  century.  In  the  notice  of 
these  several  points  we  principally  follow  Bleek. 

(1)  Was  the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel  a 
Jew  P  It  is  objected  that  his  manner  of  referring 
to  the  Jews  proves  him  not  to  be  of  their  number. 
Thus  we  read  of  the  “Jews’  Passover,”  “the  Jews’ 
feast  of  tabernacles,”  the  “feast  of  the  Jews,”  the 
“ preparation  of  the  Jews,”  the  “ruler  of  the  Jews” 
(ii.  6,  13  ;  iii.  1  ;  v.  1  ;  vi.  4 ;  vii.  2 ;  xi.  55) ;  and  fre¬ 
quently  the  author,  alluding  to  the  adversaries  of 
Jesus  and  those  with  whom  he  came  in  contact, 
speaks  of  them  in  general  as  oi  ’ lovScuoc .  This 
style  is  capable  of  explanation  only  on  the  hypothesis 


118  GENUINENESS  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 

that  the  Gospel  was  written  late  in  the  apostolic 
age,  when  the  Christian  Church  had  come  to  be 
fully  independent  of  the  Jewish,  and  by  a  writer  who 
was  himself  outside  of  Palestine,  and  addressed  his 
work  not  only  to  Jews,  but  also,  and  still  more,  to 
Gentiles  and  Gentile  Christians.  And  this  supposi¬ 
tion,  which  removes  the  difficulty,  is  itself  the  church 
tradition  concerning  the  composition  of  John.1  But 
independently  of  this  tradition,  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  the  author  was  of  Jewish  extraction.  In  proof 
of  this,  Bleek  refers  to  the  writer’s  familiarity  with 
the  Jewish  laws  and  customs,  which  is  so  manifest 
in  his  account  of  the  events  connected  with  the 
Saviour’s  death;  to  the  pragmatical  character  of  the 
Gospel,  so  far  as  the  fulfilment  of  Old  Testament 
predictions  and  promises  is  frequently  pointed  out; 
and  to  the  fact  that  a  portion  of  these  citations  are 
translated  directly  from  the  Hebrew,  instead  of  being- 
taken  from  the  Septuagint, — a  fact  that  is  conclu¬ 
sive  in  favor  of  his  Jewish,  and  strongly  in  favor  of 
his  Palestinian,  origin.  It  occurs  to  us,  also,  that 
Baur,  in  conceding  that  the  author  professes  to  be 
the  Apostle  John,  may  be  himself  challenged  to 
explain  why  he  is  so  negligent  in  affording  evidence 
of  a  Jewish  extraction.  Surely,  so  expert  a  counter¬ 
feiter  would  not  have  forgotten  a  point  so  essential 


1  Even  Paul  speaks  of  his  “  former  conversation  in  the  Jews' 
religion;  ”  of  his  profiting  “  in  the  Jews'  religion  Gal.  i.  13,  14. 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE. 


119 


to  a  successful  attempt  to  personate  the  Apostle.  The 
charge  that  errors  are  found  in  John  inconsistent 
with  the  hypothesis  that  the  author  was  a  Palestinian 
Jew,  is  without  foundation.  That  Bethany  (the  true 
reading  for  “  Bethabara  beyond  Jordan,”  in  John 
i.  28)  was  either  the  name  of  a  place  in  Peraea,  or 
was  a  slip  of  the  pen  for  Bethabara;  that,  at  any 
rate,  the  writer  did  not  misplace  the  Bethany  where 
Lazarus  dwelt,  is  demonstrated  by  John  xi.  18,  where 
this  town  is  expressly  said  to  be  fifteen  stadia  from 
Jerusalem.  The  assertion  that  in  the  designation  of 
Caiaphas  as  high  priest  for  that  year,  aQ^ftQtvg  rov 
evLainou  ixtlvov  (xi.  51;  xviii.  13,)  the  author 
implies  a  belief  that  the  high  priest  was  changed 
every  year,  is  entirely  unwarranted  by  anything  in 
the  text.  The  term  “  Sychar  ”  for  the  old  city 
Sichem,  instead  of  being  a  blunder,  may  be  an  old 
pronunciation  of  the  Jews  and  Samaritans  of  that 
time.  As  used  by  the  Jews  there  may  lurk  under  it 
a  reference  to  the  hated  character  of  the  Samaritans ; 
or,  finally,  it  may  be  simply  an  error  of  transcription.1 

1  See  Bleek,  s.  209.  The  supposition  that  it  is  really  the  name 
of  a  town  distinct  from  Sichem,  though  near  it,  agrees  with  the 
oldest  traditions,  and  on  several  accounts  seems  more  probable.  So 
Hug  ( Introd .  Part  II.,  sec.  59),  Ewald  {Die  Johan.  Schriften ,  I.  181), 
Bruckner,  Baumlein,  Thomson,  ( The  Land  and  the  Book,  II.  206), 
and  others.  Comp.  Grove’s  art.  in  Smith’s  Bible  Diet.  The  ex¬ 
planations  given  above  (from  Bleek)  rest  purely  on  conjecture ; 
this  rests  on  historical  and  topographical  arguments,  confirmed  by 
the  existence  at  the  present  day  of  a  place  with  a  similar  name 
(’Askar)  near  the  site  of  Jacob’s  well.  Lightfoot  ( Chorog .  Enquiry, 


120  GENUINENESS  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 

(2)  The  objection  is  made  that  a  Galilean  fisher¬ 
man,  like  John,  could  not  be  possessed  of  so  much 
Greek  culture  as  the  fourth  Gospel  discovers.  But 
the  family  of  John  were  neither  in  a  low  station,  nor 
in  straitened  circumstances.  He  was  certainly  trained 
by  his  pious  mother  in  the  knowledge  of  the  Old 
Testament.  He  may  have  been  early  taught  the 
Greek  language,  which  was  then  so  widely  diffused. 
The  report  which  the  members  of  the  Sanhedrim 
had  heard,  that  Peter  and  John  were  unlearned  and 
uncultivated  men  (Acts  iv.  13)  can  only  signify  that 
they  were  not  educated  in  the  schools  of  the  Rabbis. 
Had  John  not  attained  some  mastery  of  the  Greek 
language,  it  is  not  so  likely  that  he  would  have  taken 
up  his  residence  in  the  midst  of  Asia,  where  only 
Greek  was  spoken,  even  by  the  Jews.  And  during 
his  prolonged  residence  there  his  familiarity  with  the 
language  would  doubtless  increase. 

(3)  The  type  of  doctrine  in  the  fourth  Gospel, 
and  especially  its  Christology,  have  been  thought  to 
be  an  argument  against  its  composition  by  John, 
the  Palestinian  Jew.  In  particular,  the  Logos  idea 
in  John,  it  is  said,  was  an  Alexandrian  notion, 
borrowed  from  the  Greek  philosophy,  and  introduced 
into  Christian  theology  at  a  later  period.  We  cannot 

prefixed  to  John,  ch.  iv.  sec.  5)  finds  “the  valley  of  the  well  of 
Sokar  ”  spoken  of  in  the  Talmud  as  at  a  great  distance  from  Jerusa¬ 
lem.  He  also  suggests,  as  does  Hug,  that  the  name  *0*10  may 
denote  a  burial-place. 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE. 


121 


% 

enter  at  length  into  the  discussion  of  this  point.  We 
simply  say  that,  as  regards  the  language  or  the  form 
of  the  doctrine,  it  may  have  been  derived  from  the 
book  of  Proverbs  and  from  Sirach,  and  not  improb¬ 
ably  was  derived  from  this  source,  though  further 
developed,  by  Philo  himself.  Elsewhere  and  earlier 
in  the  New  Testament  itself,  if  not  in  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews,  yet  undeniably  in  the  Apocalypse,  we 
meet  with  the  Johannean  terminology.  But,  even 
if  the  language  pertaining  to  the  Logos  came  at 
first  from  the  Greek  philosophy,  it  may  have  been 
taken  up  by  John,  as  a  fit  designation  of  the  pre¬ 
existent  Christ.  Properly  qualified,  it  became  a 
vehicle  for  conveying  his  conception  of  the  Son  in 
his  relation  to  the  Eather.  In  the  use  of  this  term, 
John  enters  upon  no  speculation.  He  would  rather 
turn  away  the  mind  from  vain  speculations,  from  the 
unprofitable  discussions  about  the  Logos  that  may 
have  been  current,  to  the  living,  historic  Bevealer 
of  God,  the  actual  manifestation  of  the  Invisible  One, 
the  Word  made  flesh,  which  had  “dwelt  among  us.” 
Accordingly,  after  the  first  few  verses,  we  hear  no  more 
of  the  Logos.  No  allusion  to  the  Logos  is  introduced 
into  his  report  of  the  discourses  of  Jesus.  As  to  the 
matter  of  the  conception,  we  utterly  deny  the  theory 
of  the  school  of  Baur,  that  the  early  church  was 
Ebionite,  regarding  Christ  as  a  mere  man.  We  hold 
that  this  theory  is  abundantly  refuted  by  passages 
in  the  synoptical  Gospels  and  Pauline  Epistles,  and 


122  GENUINENESS  OE  THE  EOURTH  GOSPEL. 

is  proved  to  be  false  by  a  fair  view  of  the  early  history 
of  the  Church.  The  theology  of  Philo,  it  deserves  to 
be  remarked,  contains  nothing  more  than  the  vaguest 
conception  of  the  Messiah,  and  is  throughout  far  more 
speculative  than  ethical ;  affording,  therefore,  no 
materials  for  that  conception  of  Jesus  Christ  which 
is  found  in  John,  and  which  only  an  intuition  of  the 
living  person  of  Christ  could  have  awakened.  The 
conception  of  Christ  in  John  is  the  product  of  the 
impression  made  by  Christ  himself  upon  the  soul  of 
the  disciple. 

(4)  We  have  to  notice  another  objection  emanating 
from  the  school  of  Baur,  that  the  free  and  liberal 
spirit  of  the  fourth  Gospel  toward  the  Gentiles  is 
inconsistent  with  the  position  attributed  to  John  in 
Galatians  ii.  9.  But  this  objection  proceeds  from 
the  assumption,  underlying  the  whole  system  of  the 
Tubingen  school,  that  Peter  and  the  other  Jerusalem 
apostles  were  radically  opposed  to  the  doctrine  of 
Paul  relative  to  the  rights  of  the  Gentiles ;  that  they 
were,  in  short,  Judaizers.  We  hold  this  assumption 
to  be  demonstrably  false,  and  the  fabric  of  historical 
construction  reared  upon  it  to  be  a  mere  castle  in 
the  air.  There  is  nothing  improbable  in  the  circum¬ 
stance  of  the  inquiry  for  Jesus  made  by  the  devout 
Greeks  (John  xii.  20)  at  which  Baur  stumbles.  Even 
in  Matthew,  which  Baur  regards  as  preeminently  a 
Jewish- Christian  Gospel,  is  recorded  the  Saviour’s  em¬ 
phatic  commendation  of  the  Centurion’s  faith  (viii 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE. 


123 


10  seq.)  ;  the  distinct  prediction  that  the  kingdom 
should  be  taken  from  the  Jews,  and  given  to  another 
people  (xxi.  43) ;  the  injunction  to  preach  the  gospel 
to  every  creature  (xxviii.  1 9) ;  the  prophecy  that  it 
should  be  preached  to  all  nations  (xxiv.  14) ;  and  the 
parables  describing  the  universal  spread  of  the  gospel 
(ch.  xxiii.).  We  are  not  to  leave  out  of  view,  in 
considering  the  spirit  of  the  fourth  Gospel  with 
reference  to  Gentile  Christianity,  the  inevitable  effect 
of  great  providential  events,  of  which  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem  was  one,  and  of  the  long  interval  of  time 
during  which  the  distinct  character  of  the  Christian 
Church  and  the  broad  design  of  Christianity  had 
become  more  and  more  plain.  In  this  objection  of 
Baur,  the  attempt  is  made  to  uphold  one  false  proposi¬ 
tion  by  another  that  is  equally  false. 

There  is  one  objection  not  to  be  separated  en¬ 
tirely  from  the  one  last  considered,  but  which  is  more 
serious  and  plausible  than  any  we  have  named.  The 
other  difficulties  which  we  have  noticed,  though  not 
unworthy  of  consideration,  vanish,  and  in  most  cases 
even  turn  into  arguments  for  the  contrary  side.  But 
the  difficulty  we  have  now  to  speak  of,  is  urged  with 
especial  emphasis.  It  is  strongly  maintained  by 
those  who  impugn  the  genuineness  of  John,  that  the 
Apocalypse,  which  they  hold  to  be  his  work,  cannot 
come  from  the  same  author  as  the  fourth  Gospel.  It 
cannot  be  denied  that  there  exists  a  degree  of  dis¬ 
parity,  both  in  language  and  thought,  between  the 


124  GENUINENESS  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 

Apocalypse  and  this  Gospel.  “  The  language  [of  the 
Apocalypse]  is  incomparably  rougher,  harder,  more 
disconnected,  and  exhibits  greater  errors  than  is  true 
of  any  other  book  in  the  New  Testament,  while  the 
language  of  the  Gospel,  though  not  pure  Greek,  is  in 
a  grammatical  view  incomparably  more  correct.” 1 
This  contrast  between  the  style  of  the  two  books  was 
stated  as  long  ago  as  the  middle  of  the  third  century, 
by  Dionysius  of  Alexandria.2  So  there  are-  various 
special  peculiarities  of  language  in  the  Gospel  which 
are  missed  in  the  Apocalypse.  “  A  still  greater  and 
more  essential  difference  is  discovered  when  we  look 
at  the  contents,  spirit,  and  whole  character  of  these 
writings.”  3  Under  this  head  Bleek  refers,  in  partic¬ 
ular,  to  the  different  position  of  the  Apocalypse  with 
reference  to  the  Jewish  people,  so  opposite  to  that  of 
the  Gospel,  where  oi  'IovScclol  is  often,  without 
qualification,  the  designation  of  the  opposers  of 
Christ ;  to  the  definite  expectation  of  the  second 
advent  and  millennium,  together  with  the  conception 
of  anti-Christ  as  a  particular  individual,  which  is 
unlike  the  conception  found  in  1  John  ii.  18  seq. ; 
iv.  3.  We  have  to  weigh  the  objection  to  the 
genuineness  of  the  Gospel  which  these  differences  have 
suggested. 

1.  The  impossibility  that  both  books  should  have 
the  same  author  is  far  from  being  established.  The 

1  Bleek,  s.  626. 

2  Euseb.,  Lib.  VII.  c.  25. 


3  Bleek,  s.  625. 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE. 


125 


Apocalypse  was  written  shortly  after  the  death  of 
Nero  and  shortly  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem. 
The  interval  prior  to  the  composition  of  the  Gospel 
was  not  far  from  twenty  years, — a  period  giving  room 
for  important  changes  in  the  style  and  habits  of 
thought  of  any  writer ;  an  era,  too,  most  eventful,  as 
concerns  the  development  of  the  plan  of  providence 
relative  to  the  Jewish  nation.  That  they  were  des¬ 
tined,  as  a  body,  to  reject  the  gospel,  and  to  be 
rejected  of  God,  was  made  manifest.  It  must  be 
confessed  that  the  force  of  our  remark,  so  far  as  it 
pertains  to  the  change  in  style  and  modes  of  thought, 
is  weakened  by  the  fact  that,  when  the  Apocalypse 
was  written,  John  must  have  been  sixty  years  old;  a 
period  of  life  after  which  important  changes  of  this 
character  are  less  likely  to  occur.  But  another  con¬ 
sideration  is  to  be  taken  into  the  account, — that  the 
mood  of  mind  and  feeling  out  of  which  the  Apocalypse 
was  written  was  altogether  peculiar  and  extraordinary, 
as  was  the  state  of  things  in  the  midst  of  which  the 
author  wrote.  The  same  author,  at  such  a  time, 
when  his  soul  was  stirred  to  its  depths  by  the  terrible 
events,  either  present  or  “  shortly  to  come  to  pass,” 
and  writing  under  the  impulse  of  prophetic  inspira¬ 
tion,  would  fall  into  quite  a  different  style  from  one 
that  would  be  natural  in  a  calmer  mood,  when  his 
only  object  was  to  set  down  recollections  of  Christ  and 
his  teaching.  Moreover,  there  are  not  wanting  various 
points  of  resemblance,  both  in  language  and  matter, 


126  GENUINENESS  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 

between  the  two  works.  To  prove  this  relationship, 
we  have  the  authority  of  Baur  himself,  from  whom  we 
translate  the  following  passage :  “  We  cannot  ignore 
the  fact  that  the  evangelist  put  himself  in  thought 
in  the  place  of  the  Apocalypsist,  and  designed  to 
make  use,  for  the  ends  aimed  at  in  his  Gospel,  of 
the  consideration  enjoyed  by  the  Apostle  John,  who, 
as  apostle,  as  author  of  the  Apocalypse,  and  as  having 
been  for  so  many  years  the  principal  head  of  their 
churches,  had  become  the  highest  authority  with  the 
Asia  Minor  Christians.  Nay,  it  is  not  merely  the 
borrowing  of  the  external  support  of  so  distinguished 
a  name;  there  are  not  wanting,  also,  internal  points 
of  affinity  between  the  Gospel  and  Apocalypse ;  and 
one  cannot  forbear  to  wonder  at  the  deep  geniality, 
the  fine  art,  with  which  the  Evangelist,  in  order  to 
transmute  spiritually  the  Apocalypse  into  the  Gospel 
[um  die  Apokalypse  zum  Evangelium  zu  vergeistigen], 
has  taken  up  the  elements  which,  from  the  point  of 
view  of  the  Apocalypse,  led  to  the  freer  and  higher 
point  of  view  of  the  Gospel.” 1  Now,  admitting  that 
so  close  an  inward  relationship  connects  the  Gospel 
with  the  Apocalypse,  why  not  refer  this  to  the  natural 
development  of  the  author’s  own  mind  and  the  pro¬ 
gress  of  his  views,  rather  than  ascribe  it  to  a  hateful 
fraud  and  lie  ?  If  the  art  of  the  forger  was  so  clever 
and  admirable,  how  can  we  accept  Baur’s  further 
view,  that  he  has  palpably  and  obviously  betrayed 


1  Baur’s  “  Das  Christenthum etc.,  s.  147,  2d  Ed. 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE. 


127 


himself?  Whatever  opinion  is  entertained  of  the 
authorship  of  the  Apocalypse,  the  Tubingen  theory  is 
convicted  of  a  gross  inconsistency.  That  both  works* 
the  Apocalypse  as  well  as  the  Gospel,  come  from  the 
Apostle,  is  the  judgment  of  Gieseler;  and  as  far  as 
authority  is  concerned,  the  confident  assertions  made 
on  the  other  side  are  more  than  balanced  by  the  calm 
opinion  of  this  deeply-learned  and  impartial  scholar. 
Says  Gieseler  :  “  the  internal  difference,  in  language 
and  modes  of  thought,  between  the  Apocalypse  which 
John  wrote  before  he  had  passed  beyond  the  Hebrew 
training  and  the  Palestinian  Jewish  Christianity,  and 
the  Gospel  and  the  Epistles  which  he  wrote  after 
living  from  twenty  to  thirty  years  among  the  Greeks, 
is  so  inevitable  a  consequence  of  the  circumstances  in 
which  he  was  placed,  that,  had  this  effect  not  occurred, 
the  fact  would  have  awakened  suspicion.  And  yet 
there  exist  in  the  two  works  many  points  of  resem¬ 
blance,  and  evidences  of  the  continuity  of  the  author’s 
development  and  culture.” 1 

2.  But  even  if  it  were  established  that  the  Apoca¬ 
lypse  and  the  fourth  Gospel  are  not  from  one  author, 
the  verdict  must  still  be  given  in  favor  of  the  genuine¬ 
ness  of  the  Gospel.  Bleek  agrees,  on  the  whole,  with 
De  Wette  and  Baur  in  supposing  that  we  are  com 
pelled  to  reject  the  Joliannean  authorship  of  one  or  the 
other,  and,  in  common  with  Neander  and  many  other 
critics  of  the  evangelical  as  well  as  the  unbelieving 


1  Gieseler’s  K.  G .,  B.  I.  s.  127.  N.  8. 


128  GENUINENESS  OE  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 

school,  holds  the  opinion  that  the  Apocalypse  is 
not  the  work  of  John.  As  we  have  said,  provided  the 
dilemma  can  be  made  out  to  exist ,  this  is  the  reasonable 
opinion.  The  Apocalypse  has  no  doubt  been  in  the 
church  since  the  date  we  have  assigned  for  its  compo¬ 
sition.  As  early  as  Justin  Martyr  it  was  quoted 
as  the  work  of  the  Apostle  John ;  but  its  genuineness 
was  also  early  questioned.  It  was  questioned  not 
only  by  the  Alogi,  but  also  by  the  Roman  presbyter 
Caius  (circa  200)  who  likewise  ascribed  it  to  Cerin- 
thus.1  Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  the  pupil  and,  suc¬ 
cessor  of  Origen,  to  whose  opinion  on  the  style  of 
the  Apocalypse  we  have  adverted,  endeavors  to  prove 
from  internal  evidence  that  the  Apostle  John  did 
not  write  the  work,  and  is  inclined  to  attribute  it  to  a 
contemporary  of  the  Apostle  at  Ephesus,  John  the 
presbyter.  Eusebius  leans  to  the  same  opinion.  He, 
also,  hesitates  about  placing  it  among  the  Homologou- 
mena,  or  New  Testament  writings  which  were  univer¬ 
sally  received  as  apostolical.2  It  was  not  included  in 
the  ancient  Syrian  version.  Long  after  it  was 
received  universally  in  the  Western  church,  doubts 
concerning  its  genuineness  continued  in  the  East.  If 
written  by  John  the  presbyter,  “a  holy  and  inspired 
man,”  as  Dionysius  supposes  him  to  be,  the  later 
habit  of  ascribing  it  to  the  Apostle,  may  have  been 
a  mistake  for  which  the  real  author  was  not  respon- 


1  Euseb.,  Lib.  III.  c.  28. 


2  Euseb.,  Lib.  III.  c.  25. 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE. 


129 


sible.  And  if  the  denial  of  its  genuineness  sprang 
from  the  great  reaction  of  the  Church  in  the  second 
century  against  Chiliastic  views,  it  was  supported,  as 
we  have  seen  in  the  case  of  Dionysius,  by  critical 
arguments.  The  evidence  for  the  apostolic  authorship 
of  the  Apocalypse  is  far  from  being  equal  to  the  accu¬ 
mulated  weight  of  evidence  for  the  Johannean  author- 
ship  of  the  fourth  Gospel.  Tor  the  former,  the  main 
proofs  of  a  composition  by  the  Apostle  are  external. 
In  the  case  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  besides  having 
all  that  can  be  ashed  in  the  way  of  external  evidence, 
we  are  able  to  add  the  most  impressive  internal  proofs 
of  its  genuineness. 

In  giving  the  internal  evidence  for  the  genuineness 
of  John,  it  would  be  a  great  oversight  to  omit  a 
notice  of  the  proof  afforded  by  the  last  chapter. 
Every  reader  of  the  Gospel  will  observe  that  in  the 
last  verses  of  the  twentieth  chapter  the  author  appears 
to  be  concluding  his  work.  It  was  held  by  Grotius, 
with  whom  agree  many  living  critics  on  the  evangel¬ 
ical  side,  as  well  as  Zeller  and  other  disciples  of  the 
Tubingen  school,  that  the  entire  twenty-first  chapter  is 
from  another  hand.  Others  are  of  opinion  that  this 
is  true  of  the  last  two  verses  alone.  That  such  is 
the  fact  respecting  the  last  verse  and  the  last  half  of 
the  verse  preceding,  from  the  words,  “  and  we  know 
that  his  testimony  is  true,” — admits  of  no  rational 
doubt.  The  remainder  of  the  chapter  bears  strong 

marks  of  genuineness,  although  it  is  not  improbable 
9 


130  GENUINENESS  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 

that  John  added  the  chapter  to  his  Gospel  as  a  sort  of 
supplement.  In  any  case,  it  is  obvious  that  the  con¬ 
versation  upon  the  question  whether  John  was  to 
survive  until  the  advent  of  Christ,  would  possess  no 
interest  and  have  no  pertinency  at  any  time  long 
subsequent  to  his  death.  But  the  concluding  verses, 
regarded,  as  they  must  be,  in  the  light  of  a  testimony 
to  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospel  on  the  part  of 
the  person  or  persons  by  whom  it  was  issued,  consti¬ 
tute  an  impressive  proof.  The  fact  that  this  attesta¬ 
tion  is  anonymous  indicates  that  he  or  they  who  made 
it,  were  well  known  to  those  for  whom  it  was  de¬ 
signed  ;  it  is  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  supposi¬ 
tion  of  fraud.  What  meaning  or  value  would  an 
attestation  wholly  anonymous  have  possessed,  at  the 
first  appearance  of  the  Gospel,  unless  the  source 
whence  this  testimony  proceeded  were  well  known  ? 
An  impostor  would  have  named  the  church  of  Ephesus 
or  its  bishop,  if  he  had  intended  to  give  a  facti¬ 
tious  credit  to  his  forgery,  by  claiming  their  sanction 
for  it.  Suppose  this  conclusion  to  have  been  written 
by  friends  to  whom  John  had  delivered  his  Gospel, 
and  from  whom  it  went  forth  to  the  world,  and 
the  whole  phenomenon  is  explained. 

In  the  preceding  pages,  various  objections  from 
the  side  of  disbelievers  in  the  genuineness  of  this 
Gospel  have  been  incidentally  considered.  Yet  the 
aim  has  been  positively  to  establish  our  proposition, 


REFUTATION  OF  BAUR. 


131 


with  the  introduction  of  no  more  of  polemical  matter 
than  seemed  indispensable  to  this  end.  We  now 
propose  to  subject  the  theory  of  Baur  to  a  more 
detailed  examination. 

Baur’s  Theory  Respecting  the  Authorship  of 

the  Fourth  Gospel. 

To  reduce  the  observations  of  Baur  to  a  self- 
consistent  hypothesis  is  not  an  easy  task.  In  general, 
however,  he  holds  that  the  main  idea  of  this  Gospel 
is  the  development  of  the  unbelief  of  the  Jews  in  its 
conflict  with  the  self-manifestation  of  Christ,  until  that 
unbelief  culminates  in  the  taking  of  his  life.  Baur  is 
not  original  in  supposing  this  to  be  a  leading  thought 
in  the  writer’s  mind.  But  nothing  is  thereby  proved 
against  the  verity  of  the  history,  since  the  actual 
course  of  Christ’s  life  was  attended  with  the  develop¬ 
ment  of  a  spirit  of  disbelief,  which  finally  broke  out 
in  the  great  act  of  violence.  But  Baur  goes  farther. 
He  pretends  that  the  history  is  fictitious  and  is  ar¬ 
tificially  contrived  as  a  vestment  for  the  idea.  This, 
however,  is  not  the  sole  idea  for  which,  as  it  is 
claimed,  the  writer  weaves  a  fictitious  dress.  That 
faith,  in  order  to  be  real  and  of  any  value,  must 
be  self-sustained  by  an  inward  power  of  its  own,  with 
no  help  from  outward  proof  through  miracles,  is  sup¬ 
posed  to  be  another  leading  thought  of  the  writer; 
and  this,  it  is  pretended,  he  illustrates  by  means  of 
invented  narrative.  Besides,  Baur  professes  to  find  the 


132  GENUINENESS  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 

traces  of  Gnostic  Dualism  in  the  antithesis  of  light 
and  darkness,  to  which  the  Gospel  writer  more  than 
once  adverts.1  Sometimes  the  language  of  Baur 
would  seem  to  imply  that  the  Evangelist,  misled 
by  the  vividness  of  his  own  conceptions,  actually  con¬ 
founds  them  with  reality.  But,  notwithstanding  an 
occasional  vague  expression  of  this  kind,  it  is  Baur’s 
real  meaning,  as  he  abundantly  explains,  that  the 
narratives  of  the  fourth  Gospel  are  intentional  fictions 
composed  to  embody  certain  ideas  and  recommend 
them  to  acceptance. 

This  remarkable  hypothesis  Baur  undertakes  to 
support  by  exegesis.  The  character  of  his  interpreta¬ 
tions  we  shall  now  exhibit  to  the  reader.  We  should 
observe  that  in  this  department  of  our  inquiry  we 
have  derived  essential  aid  from  the  acute  observations 
of  Bruckner. 

1.  There  is  no  truth  in  the  charge  that  a  Dualistic 
theory  is  taught  in  John’s  Gospel.  In  connection 
with  every  passage  which  Baur  cites,  the  distinction 
between  light  and  darkness  is  declared  to  be  ethical. 
It  is  not  a  physical  or  metaphysical  separation,  but  is 
founded  in  voluntary  character.  Men  remain  in  dark¬ 
ness  “  because  their  deeds  are  evil they  will  not 
come  to  the  light  for  fear  of  being  rebuked.  See 
John  iii.  19-21 ;  also,  compare  John  viii.  47  with  viii. 
34,  and  John  xii.  35,  36  with  John  xii.  43.  It  is  said 
that  “  all  things  were  made  by  ”  the  Word,  and  that 


1  Baur,  Die  Kanon.  Evcingelien ,  s.  88,  89. 


REFUTATION  OF  BAUR. 


133 


He  “  came  unto  His  own”  i.  e.,  to  tlie  Jews  (John 

i.  3,  11).  How  baseless  then  is  the  imputation  of  a 

Gnostic  Dualism  to  the  Evangelist,  in  which  the 

Jews,  or  most  of  them,  are  destitute  of  “  the  light- 
0 

nature !  ” 

2.  Baur’s  exposition  of  the  passages  relative  to 
John  the  Baptist  is  most  unnatural.  In  c.  i.  32,  33 
there  is  given  the  testimony  of  John  the  Baptist  to  the 
descent  of  the  Spirit,  as  a  dove,  upon  Jesus.  This 
sign,  he  said,  had  been  appointed  “  by  Him  who  sent 
me  to  baptize  with  water.”  How  plain,  especially 
with  the  narrative  of  the  Synoptics  before  us,  that  the 
recognition  of  Jesus  was  at  his  baptism,  which 
the  Evangelist  notices  here,  though  it  had  taken  place 
earlier  than  the  events  just  before  recorded !  Yet 
Baur  denies  this,  and  even  denies  that  the  passage 
implies  that  Jesus  was  baptized  by  John!  Baur 
attempts  to  establish  the  existence  of  an  artificial 
chronology — a  double  trias  of  days,  beginning  with 
c.  i.  29  and  terminating  with  c.  ii.  12;  but  we  need 
say  no  more  than  that  the  double  trias  is  made 
out  by  assuming  a  new  day,  falsely  and  without  the 
slightest  support  from  the  text,  at  ver.  41.  Elad  the 
Evangelist  contrived  the  chronological  scheme  which 
his  critic  imputes  to  him,  he  would  not  have  omitted 
to  make  the  division  of  time  at  ver.  41,  which  the 
critic  interpolates. 

Baur’s  treatment  of  the  narrative  of  the  miracle 
in  Cana  is  extraordinary.  Why  a  circumstantial  ac- 


134  GENUINENESS  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 

count  of  this  kind  should  be  deliberately  fabricated  by 
such  a  writer  as  the  Evangelist,  is  a  question  not  easy 
to  answer.  Baur  sees  in  it  an  allegorical  representa¬ 
tion  of  the  position  of  John  the  Baptist  (which  is  indi¬ 
cated  by  the  water),  and  the  transition  to  the  higher 
position  of  Jesus  (which  is  denoted  by  the  wine) ; 
together  with  a  further  reference  to  Jesus  under  the 
symbol  of  the  bridegroom.  Not  that  the  Evangelist 
means  that  his  readers  should  regard  his  narrative  as 
a  fiction ;  he  would  palm  it  off  on  them  as  fact.  But 
it  is  the  force  of  “  the  idea  ”  in  his  own  mind,  which 
moves  him  to  the  invention  of  the  story.  It  is  hardly 
necessary  to  say  that  the  notion  of  an  allegory  is 

favored  by  not  so  much  as  a  hint  in  the  narrative 

< 

itself ;  nay,  it  is  excluded  by  the  declaration  (in  ver. 
11)  that  the  end  of  the  miracle  was  the  manifestation 
of  the  glory  of  Christ. 

A  good  illustration  of  the  style  of  Baur’s  exegesis 
is  afforded  by  his  comments  on  John  iii.  22,  where 
Jesus  is  said  to  have  tarried  with  his  disciples  and 
baptized.  In  the  next  chapter  (John  iv.  2),  it  is 
incidentally  explained  that  Jesus  himself  baptized 
not,  but  his  disciples.  That  this  explanation,  omitted 
in  the  first  passage,  should  be  thrown  in  afterwards,  is 
nothing  strange.  But  Baur  sees  in  the  two  passages 
the  proofs  of  a  deep  design.  The  Evangelist,  he 
thinks,  would  elevate  Jesus  above  John,  but  would  do 
it  gradually,  with  a  kind  of  artful  rhetoric.  Eirst,  he 
equalizes  the  former  with  the  latter,  by  stating  that 


REFUTATION  OF  BAUR. 


135 


Jesus  baptized ;  then,  after  an  interval,  he  advances  a 
step  by  adding  that  Jesus  did  not  (like  John)  himself 
baptize,  but  caused  this  rite  to  be  performed  by  his 
disciples.  Such  a  puerile  device  is  gravely  imputed  to 
the  artless  writer  of  this  Gospel ! 

3.  On  other  points  in  the  earlier  chapters  of  John, 
Baur’s  interpretation  will  not  bear  examination.  It  is 
represented  that  the  author  of  the  Gospel  makes 
Judaea  “  the  country”  of  Jesus  (John  iv.  44); 
although  it  is  perfectly  evident  from  the  context  that 
such  is  not  his  meaning,  but  that  he  ascribes  the 
increasing  admiration  of  Jesus  on  the  part  of  the 
Galileans,  his  countrymen,  to  the  commotion  which 
he  had  occasioned  at  Jerusalem.  Nicodemus  is  pro¬ 
nounced  a  fictitious  character,  introduced  as  a  repre¬ 
sentative  of  the  unbelieving  Jews  who  require  miracles, 
while  the  woman  of  Samaria  is  said  to  represent  the 
susceptible  Gentiles  who  believe  without  the  need  of 
miracles.  Unfortunately  for  Baur’s  theory,  Nicodemus 
is  not  described  as  an  unbeliever,  but  as  having  some 
degree  of  faith,  and  the  Samaritan  woman  believes  in 
consequence  of  the  evidence  which  she  had  of  the 
miraculous  knowledge  of  Christ,  by  whom  she  was 
told  all  things  that  ever  she  did  (John  iv.  29). 

4.  The  effort  of  Baur  to  destroy  the  credibility  of 
the  seventh  chapter,  a  portion  of  the  Gospel  which  is 
stamped  with  irresistible  evidence  of  truth,  leads  him 
into  still  more  perverse  interpretation.  Jesus  (ver.  10) 
went  up  to  the  feast,  not  with  his  brethren,  not  openly, 


136  GENUINENESS  OE  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 


“  but  as  it  were  in  secret  ” — cog  tv  xnvxrco,  This 
plain  statement,  Baur  not  only  twists  into  a  declaration 
that  Jesus  made  himself,  after  a  Docetic  fashion,  invisi¬ 
ble,  but,  also,  that  he  presented  himself  before  the 
Jews  in  a  form  different  from  his  own.  And  this  is 
only  one  of  the  misinterpretations  which  the  seventh 
chapter  is  made  to  suffer.  Of  this  misrepresentation 
of  the  sense  of  cog  tv  xqvtitco,  Bruckner  says :  “it  is 
not  sustained  by  the  words  themselves,  it  rests  upon 
the  false  interpretation  of  vs.  15  and  20,  and  it  is 
fully  refuted  by  ver.  14,  where  the  public  appearance 
of  Christ  without  any  such  Docetic  transformation  is 
related,  as  well  as  by  ver.  25,  where  Jesus  is  actually 
recognized  by  some  at  the  same  moment  when  others 
do  not  know  him, — so  that,  if  Baur’s  view  were  right, 
he  must  have  taken  on  a  shape  which  veiled  the 
identity  of  his  person  from  some,  while  it  was  disclosed 
to  others.”  Baur’s  treatment  of  the  entire  chapter, 
Bruckner  has  well  exposed.  “  According  to  Baur,” 
says  this  able  critic,  “  the  theological  end  (tendency)  to 
be  accomplished  by  the  seventh  chapter  is  to  show  how 
the  dialectics  into  which  unbelief  enters  carry  their 
own  dialectical  refutation  ;  and  in  this  way,  that  Jesus 
in  three  different  sorts  of  self-manifestation  confronts 
the  unbelief  of  the  Jews  :  in  the  first,  tv  xqvtctco  ;  in 
the  second,  at  ver.  28 ;  in  the  third,  at  vs.  37  seq. 
This  whole  arrangement  by  Baur  breaks  to  pieces  on 
the  correct  interpretation  of  ver.  10,  which  refers  to  no 
appearance  of  Christ  before  the  Jews,  such  as  Baur 


REFUTATION  OF  BAUR. 


137 


pretends  to  be  referred  to  by  the  tv  xqvtctcg  ;  it,  also, 
clashes  with  the  fact  that  the  favorable  inclination  of 
the  people  to  Jesus  (vs.  12,  31,  40,  41)  is  just  as 
often  brought  forward,  as  is  the  unbelief  of  the  Jews ; 
it  ignores  the  distinction  between  “  the  people  ”  (oj/Xog) 
and  the  Rulers,  which  runs  through  the  whole  chapter, 
and  which  greatly  influences  the  words  of  Christ,  as 
well  as  the  replies  to  him  and  the  judgment  concerning 
them ;  it  robs  the  narrative,  in  which  the  Evangelist  is 
much  more  concerned  with  things  done  than  with 
things  said,  of  its  life ;  and  it  imputes  to  the  Evange¬ 
list  purposes  which  are  nowhere  indicated,  and  have  no 
more  plausibility  than  a  great  many  others  which 
might  be  suggested  with  an  equal  or  greater  show  of 
justice/’ 1  If  we  could  reasonably  ascribe  to  the 
author  of  the  Gospel  any  “tendency,”  it  wTould  be 
more  rational  to  say  that  he  designed  to  set  forth  the 
schism  between  the  people  and  the  rulers,  and  even 
among  the  rulers  themselves,  than  to  exhibit  the 
unbelief  of  the  Jews  as  a  body.  And  Baur’s  exegesis 
of  this  chapter  may  serve  as  a  touchstone  of  his 
theory.  He  is  under  the  necessity  of  finding  in  this, 
as  in  every  other  narrative  in  the  Gospel,  some  occult 
design,  “  the  idea,”  which  sways  the  writer  in  the 
contrivance  of  his  alleged  fiction.  To  explain  the 
narrative  in  detail  conformably  to  this  theory  is  found 
quite  impossible,  without  a  resort  to  the  most  fanciful 
and  violent  interpretation. 

1  Bruckner’s  De  Wette,  s.  139,  140. 


138 


GENUINENESS  OE  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 


5.  Baur  would  have  us  believe  that  the  Evangelist 
has  made  up  various  tales  and  conversations  in  order 
to  exhibit  a  particular  conception  of  faith  and  of 
unbelief.  Thus,  the  belief  of  the  Samaritans  and  the 
belief  of  the  nobleman  (John  iv.  39,  50)  are  designed, 
we  are  assured,  to  commend  a  faith  which  is  founded 
on  the  words  of  Christ,  instead  of  on  miracles.  It  is 
impossible  not  to  see  the  difference  of  the  two  cases. 
The  faith  of  the  Samaritans  was  first  awakened  by  the 
saying — did  tov  loyov — of  the  woman  :  “  He  told  me 
all  that  ever  I  did.”  It  rested  on  belief  in  her  testi¬ 
mony  to  the  exhibition  of  miraculous  knowledge. 
The  nobleman,  on  the  contrary,  believed  the  word — 
tco  loyco — of  Jesus ;  that  is,  credited  a  particular 
declaration;  and  he  “believed,”  at  least  was  assured 
in  his  faith,  after  the  miracle  and  in  consequence  of  it, 
ver.  53.  Equally  fanciful  is  Baur’s  notion  that  the 
design  of  the  sixth  chapter  is  to  depict  the  manner 
in  which  a  faith  that  is  produced  by  miracles,  shows 
itself  a  mere  semblance  of  faith  ;  that  the  allusion  to 
Judas  (vi.  64)  is  to  show  how  a  perverse  will  be¬ 
comes  likewise  the  mere  counterfeit  of  faith ;  that 
the  inquiry,  “have  any  of  the  Bulers  or  the  Phari¬ 
sees  believed  on  him,”  is  put  into  the  mouth  of  the 
Pharisees  and  Priests  for  the  purpose  of  presenting  the 
climax  of  unbelief,  when  it  rests  upon  no  grounds  at 
all !  The  case  of  Thomas  is  considered  by  Baur  to  be 
a  fiction  to  illustrate  the  doctrine  that  faith,  when  based 
on  sight,  is  no  faith.  But  Jesus  does  not  say  that 


REFUTATION  OF  BAUR. 


139 


Thomas  has  no  faith  ;  he  says  the  opposite.  He  says, 
“  because  thou  hast  seen,  thou  hast  believed ,”  and  then 
exalts  the  faith  of  those  who  have  not  seen.  But 
these  last  are  not  those  who  believe  without  evidence, 
but  who  believe  on  the  evidence  of  testimony,  which 
Thomas  (ver.  25)  had  refused  to  do.  That  Baur’s 
interpretation  of  the  Evangelist’s  design  is  false,  the 
verses  immediately  following  the  account  of  the  skep¬ 
ticism  of  Thomas  decisively  prove  :  “  Many  other  signs 
truly  did  Jesus ....  but  these  are  written,  that  ye  might 
believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ ,  the  Son  of  Gocl.” 

6.  Certain  circumstances  in  the  narrative  of  John 
which  to  an  unprejudiced  reader  afford  irresistible 
evidence  of  its  historical  truth,  are  construed  by  this 
hostile  and  suspicious  criticism  into  proofs  of  sinister, 
mendacious  contrivance.  For  example,  the  anointing 
of  the  eyes  of  the  blind  man  with  clay  (c.  ix.  6)  is 
pronounced  an  invention  to  make  the  breaking  of  the 
Sabbath  more  marked  ;  and  the  delays  and  reluctance 
of  Pilate,  which  are  so  true  to  nature,  are  fabricated  to 
enhance  the  guilt  of  the  Jews  in  condemning  him. 
In  the  same  spirit  Baur  charges  that  the  hearing  of 
Jesus  before  Annas  is  a  fabrication  to  heighten  the 
guilt  of  the  Jews;  although  John  does  not  stop  to 
record  the  actual  condemnation  of  Jesus  by  either 
Annas  or  Caiaphas,  and  a  careful  examination  of  his 
narrative  (comp.  John  xviii.  24  with  vs.  18,  25,  28) 
shows  that  the  denials  of  Peter  took  place  after  Jesus 
was  led  away  from  Annas  to  Caiaphas,  so  that  nothing 


140  GENUINENESS  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 

that  occurred  in  the  interview  with  the  former  is 
recorded.  One  of  the  most  extravagant  specimens  of 
the  Tubingen  method  of  criticism  is  the  notion  that  in 
this  Gospel  there  is  a  studied  depreciation  of  Peter.1 
The  honor  put  upon  Peter  by  his  Master’s  solemn 
charge  (John  xxi.  15,  18),  an  incident  recorded  by  no 
other  evangelist,  would  seem  to  be  a  sufficient  refuta¬ 
tion  of  a  charge  which  rests  on  trivial  grounds.  It  is 
even  affirmed  by  these  critics  that  in  John  xviii.  26, 
where  one  of  the  servants  who  interrogated  Peter  is 
characterized  as  a  kinsman  of  the  person  “  whose  ear 
Peter  cut  off,”  the  Evangelist  goes  out  of  his  way  to 
bring  in  an  act  discreditable  to  Peter;  an  act,  too, 
which  these  critics  also  say  is  falsely  attributed  to  him. 
A  double  falsification  is  thus  laid  to  the  charge  of  the 
Evangelist,  and  in  one  instance,  at  least,  a  very  cun¬ 
ning  falsification.  Our  readers  must  judge  whether 
thoughts  like  these  really  had  their  birth  in  the  mind 
of  the  Evangelist,  or  only  in  the  mind  of  his  critic. 

7.  Baur  dwells  with  much  emphasis  on  the  account 
of  the  piercing  of  the  side  of  the  crucified  Jesus  by  a 
soldier’s  lance,  as  a  passage  fully  sustaining  his  hypo¬ 
thesis  respecting  the  general  character  of  the  Gospel, 
and  in  particular  his  theory  that  the  author  dates  the 
crucifixion  on  the  morning  before  the  occurrence  of  the 
Jewish  passover  meal,  in  order  to  make  that  event 
coincide  chronologically  with  the  slaying  of  the  pass- 
over-lamb.  Having  said  that  the  soldiers  did  not 


1  Baur,  s.  323. 


REFUTATION  OF  BAUR. 


141 


break  the  legs  of  Christ,  but  that  one  of  them  pierced 
his  side,  probably  in  order  to  assure  himself  that  he 
was  dead,  as  he  appeared  to  be,  the  Evangelist  adds 
(John  Nix.  36,  37)  :  “  these  things  were  done  that  the 
scripture  should  be  fulfilled,  ‘  a  bone  of  him  shall  not 
be  broken/  And  again  another  scripture  saith,  ‘  they 
shall  look  on  him  whom  they  pierced/  ”  Now  this 
passage  is  all  that  the  Gospel  says  which  can  be 
thought  to  imply  a  similitude  between  Christ  and  the 
slain  lamb  of  the  passover.1  We  are  willing  to 
concede  that  such  an  analogy  is  here  implied,  in  the 
circumstance  that  the  bones  of  Christ  were  not  broken. 
But  the  attention  of  the  Evangelist  is  more  drawn  to 

i 

the  fact  that  predictions  are  fulfilled  (see  ver.  37), 
irrespective  of  the  thought  that  thereby  Jesus  was 
exhibited  as  the  Passover-Lamb ;  and  his  interest  is 
still  greater  in  the  surprising  fact  that  water  with  blood 
flowed  from  the  wound  in  his  side.  Had  it  been  a 
leading  purpose  on  his  part  to  set  forth  a  parallelism 
between  the  crucifixion  and  the  slaying  of  the  lamb,  a 
purpose  so  prominent  in  his  mind  as  to  lead  him  to 
contradict  the  received  authorities  by  misdating 
Christ’s  death,  it  is  impossible  that  the  analogy  should 
have  been  suggested  in  so  cursory  and  incidental  a 
way.  He  would  infallibly  have  made  his  theological 
idea  clear  and  conspicuous.  The  Apostle  Paul  himself, 

1  The  exclamation  of  the  Baptist  (John  i.  29)  refers  to  the  con¬ 
ception  of  the  Messiah  which  was  drawn  from  Isaiah  liii.,  and  not 
to  the  lamb  of  the  passover. 


142 


GENUINENESS  OE  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 


who,  according  to  Baur,  undoubtedly  placed  the  death 
of  Jesus  on  the  morning  after  the  Jewish  passover- 
meal,  brings  forward  even  more  explicitly  the  same 
analogy  which  John  is  supposed  to  suggest,  and 
probably  does  suggest,  in  the  passage  on  which  we  are 
commenting.  Paul  says  (1  Cor.  v.  7)  :  “  for  even 
Christ,  our  Passover,  is  sacrificed  for  us.”  It  is 
worthy  of  note  that  the  same  thought  which  is 
innocent  when  suggested  by  Paul,  is  made  to  bear  so 
tremendous  a  burden  of  consequences  when  suggested 
by  the  Evangelist.  The  reader  will  not  forget  that 
this  passage  in  John  in  respect  to  the  piercing  of  the 
body  of  Christ  by  the  soldier’s  lance,  is  accompanied 
by  a  solemn  asseveration  of  its  truth,  the  Evangelist — ■ 
for  it  is  of  himself  that  the  writer  speaks — professing 
to  have  been  an  eyewitness  (c.  xix.  35).  It  is  curious 
to  inquire  how  Baur  disposes  of  this  passage,  which  if 
it  be  false,  must  be  held  to  resemble  very  closely 
wilful  lying,  notwithstanding  the  disquisitions  of  the 
Tubingen  critics  about  anonymity,  the  license  allowed 
to  literary  forgery  in  the  old  time,  and  “  the  power  of 
the  idea.”  Baur’s  language,  in  commenting  on  this 
asseveration  of  the  Evangelist,  is  unusually  hazy.  He 
appears  to  say  that  it  is  only  the  truth  of  the  intuition 
that  Christ  im  dying  opened  the  fulness  of  spiritual 
life  for  the  believing  world,  which  “  the  Evangelist 
testifies  to  with  the  immediate  certainty  of  his  Chris¬ 
tian  consciousness.”  It  cannot  be  Baur’s  intention  to 
say  that  the  Evangelist  does  not  design  to  make  his 


REFUTATION  OF  BAUR. 


143 


readers  believe  in  the  objective  facts  which  he  here 
records ;  and  yet  the  critic  shrinks,  with  a  somewhat 
commendable  feeling,  from  distinctly  charging  him 
with  conscious  mendacity.  It  will  be  plain  to  every 
unsophisticated  mind  that  what  is  called  “  the  might 
of  the  idea,”  granting  that  such  a  force  was  operative 
in  the  Evangelist’s  mind,  would  lead  no  one  but  a  liar 
deliberately  to  affirm  that  he  had  seen  a  certain  person 
struck  with  a  lance  by  a  soldier,  when  he  had  not. 

8.  It  would  be  easy  to  multiply  from  Baur’s 
treatise  examples  of  what  we  cannot  but  consider  a 
wholly  improbable,  and  even  forced,  exegesis  of  pas¬ 
sages  in  this  Gospel.  For  the  present  discussion, 
however,  it  is  only  essential  to  notice  his  interpreta¬ 
tions  so  far  as  they  are  employed  to  sustain  his  lead¬ 
ing  hypothesis.  Yet,  we  cannot  forbear  to  mention 
one  or  two  additional  instances  of  this  unnatural  con¬ 
struction  of  the  Evangelist’s  words.  The  critic  finds 
in  the  reply  of  the  risen  Jesus  to  the  salutation  of 
Mary :  “  go  unto  my  brethren,  and  say  unto  them,  I 
ascend  unto  my  Father,”  an  expression  of  the  pur¬ 
pose  of  Christ  to  ascend  on  the  instant ;  and,  accord¬ 
ing  to  Baur,  that  he  did  then  and  there  ascend,  is  the 
Evangelist’s  idea.  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  say  that 
the  present  tense  of  the  verb  does  not  at  all  confine  us 
to  this  strange  inference,  which  is  contradicted  by  vs. 
26,  27.  It  is  obviously  the  idea  of  the  Evangelist 
that  Christ  had  been  on  the  earth  up  to  the  time  of  his 
meeting  Mary  (vs.  1-17),  which  of  itself  overthrows 


144  GENUINENESS  OE  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 

Baur’s  notion  that  he  is  represented  as  ascending  imme¬ 
diately  on  his  rising  from  the  dead.  A  signal  instance 
of  a  similar  style  of  exegesis,  as  well  as  illustration  of 
the  embarrassment  in  which  Baur  involves  himself  in 
his  arraignment  of  the  Evangelist,  is  the  explanation 
he  gives  of  John  xiv.  31,  a  passage  which  we  have 
adduced  in  proof  of  the  fidelity  of  the  Evangelist’s 
report  of  the  discourses  of  Christ :  “  Arise,  let  us  go 
hence  ”  ( tysiQtoikt ,  ayco/Litv).  These  words,  which 
were  doubtless  a  current  phrase,  happen  to  be  used 
by  Christ,  according  to  Matt.  xxvi.  46,  in  another 
connection.  The  author  of  John,  says  Baur,  found 
them  in  the  Synoptics  and  introduced  them  at  this 
place,  in  order  to  make  a  pause  !  It  happens  that  a 
pause  is  made  without  this  phrase,  which  in  any  event 
would  be  perfectly  inapposite  to  the  purpose.  As 
far  as  we  can  see,  the  Evangelist  might  as  well  be 
conceived  to  introduce  the  fragment  of  a  genealogy 
for  the  sake  of  making  a  transition  to  a  new  topic,  as 
a  phrase  like  this. 

These  curiosities  of  interpretation  remind  us  of 
the  incongruous  representations  of  the  Tubingen 
criticism  in  regard  to  the  relation  of  the  Evangelist 
to  the  synoptical  writers.  All  concede  that  the  fourth 
Gospel,  in  structure  and  contents,  has  the  character 
of  an  independent  narrative.  This  independence  the 
Tubingen  critics,  in  many  instances,  exaggerate  into 
an  intended  contradiction,  and  a  seemingly  needless 


REFUTATION  OF  BAUR. 


145 


contradiction  on  essential  points.  Yet  they  affirm, 
in  the  same  breath,  that  even  on  these  points  where 
the  Evangelist  wantonly  breaks  loose  from  the  synop¬ 
tical  authorities,  he  slavishly  borrows  from  them.  It 
is  in  imitation  of  the  synoptical  writers  that  John 
makes  Jesus  visit  Jerusalem  to  attend  festivals;  yet 
he  does  not  scruple  to  contradict  them  in  multiplying 
the  number  of  these  visits  :  he  takes  from  the  other 
Gospels  the  circumstance  of  the  scourging  in  the 
temple,  but  transfers  it  from  the  end  to  the  beginning 
of  his  ministry  :  he  is  dependent  on  the  same  writers 
for  much  that  is  said  of  John’s  baptism  “with  water,” 
and  his  recognition  of  Jesus  (John  i.  31,  35),  and'  yet 
implies  that  Jesus  was  not  baptized.  Eor  these  and 
numerous  other  supposed  deviations  from  the  Synop¬ 
tics,  the  critics  are  able  to  assign  no  sufficient  reasons. 
The  Synoptics  might  have  been  followed,  and  the  ends 
attributed  to  the  Evangelist  equally  well  secured. 
The  Tubingen  pretension  is  most  inconsistent  when 
single  words  and  scraps  of  sentences  are  alleged  to  be 
borrowed  from  the  first  three  Gospels,  although  the 
passages  where  they  are  found  in  the  Evangelist  are, 
in  their  matter,  original  and  wholly  independent  of 
those  Gospels.  A  good  example  is  the  passage, 
“Arise,  let  us  go  hence”  (John  xiv.  31),  which  has 
already  been  referred  to.  Sometimes  Baur  is  obliged 
to  fall  back  on  hypotheses  more  characteristic  of 
Strauss,  in  order  to  provide  his  readers  with  some 

explanation  of  the  narratives  of  miracles.  Thus,  the 
10 


146  GENUINENESS  OE  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 

raising  of  Lazarus  is  to  present  an  exertion  of  miracu¬ 
lous  power,  which,  is  a  grade  above  the  case,  in  the 
Synoptics,  of  the  raising  of  the  son  of  the  widow  of 
Nain.  Of  course,  not  a  particle  of  proof  is  vouch¬ 
safed  in  support  of  this  empty  conjecture.  Again, 
Baur  contends  that  the  narrative  of  the  healing  of  the 
nobleman’s  son  (John  iv.  46  seq.)  is  a  copy  or  imita¬ 
tion  of  the  narrative  in  Matt.  viii.  5  seq.  of  the  cure 
of  the  centurion’s  servant.  Baur  supposes  that  the 
former  narrative  was  to  prove  the  superiority,  in  the 
judgment  of  Christ,  of  a  faith  which  rests  on  his 
word  alone ;  and  he  further  supposes  that  a  constant 
aim  of  the  fourth  Gospel  is  to  covertly  extol  the 
susceptibility  of  the  Gentiles,  in  contrast  with  the 
unbelief  of  the  Jews.  Now  in  Matthew’s  narrative 
(Matt,  viii.),  Jesus  is  represented  to  have  marvelled 
at  the  centurion’s  faith,  and  to  have  said  :  “  Y erily  I 
say  unto  you,  I  have  not  found  so  great  faith,  no,  not 
in  Israel !  ”  If  the  author  of  John  were  following 
Matthew’s  narrative,  this  would  be  the  most  welcome 
and  the  most  apposite  passage  in  the  whole  of  it.  Yet 
he  omits  it  altogether !  Can  a  hypothesis  receive  a 
more  complete  overthrow  than  is  experienced  by  that 
of  Baur  concerning  this  portion  of  John  ? 

We  have  judged  it  desirable  thus  to  sift  the  inter¬ 
pretations  of  the  Tubingen  critics,  for  the  sake  of 
thoroughly  acquainting  our  readers  with  the  character 
of  the  arguments  which  are  relied  upon  in  the  assault 
upon  the  genuineness  of  this  Gospel  Be  it  remem- 


REFUTATION  OF  BAUR. 


147 


bered  that  all  tliis  unsound,  artificial  interpretation  is 
indispensable  to  the  success  of  their  cause.  A  corres¬ 
pondence  must  be  found  between  the  various  inci¬ 
dents,  conversations,  discourses,  in  John  and  the 
theological  “tendency”  which  has  the  credit  of 
fabricating  them.  A  failure  to  detect  this  corres¬ 
pondence,  in  the  detailed  investigation  of  the  Gospel, 
and  by  a  fair  exegesis  of  it,  is  the  downfall  of  the 
entire  theory,  even  if  there  were  nothing  else  to  be 
said  against  it.  That  such  a  failure  is  justly  attribu¬ 
table  to  the  critic,  the  foregoing  examination  has 
sufficiently  evinced. 

In  a  previous  part  of  this  Essay,  we  have  re¬ 
marked  upon  the  proofs  of  an  interest  in  the  history 
as  such — a  genuine  historical  feeling — on  the  part  of 
the  author  of  this  Gospel.  These  are  proofs  which,  be¬ 
ing  obviously  undesigned  features  in  the  narrative,  are 
peculiarly  impressive.  And  since  the  variations  in 
John  from  the  synoptical  Gospels  can  be  accounted 
for  on  no  such  theory  as  that  of  the  Tubingen  critics, 
we  are  authorized  in  pronouncing  them  evidences 
of  the  faithful  recollection  of  the  Evangelist.  Let  the 
reader  examine  his  account  of  the  baptism  of  Jesus 
and  the  testimony  to  Jesus  by  the  Baptist  (John  i. 
19-37);  his  record  of  the  calling  of  the  apostles 
(John  i.  35-43) ;  his  description  of  the  designation 
of  the  traitor,  at  the  last  supper  (John  xiii.  21-30) ; 
his  narrative  of  the  denials  of  Peter  (John  xxiii.  15 


148  GENUINENESS  OE  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 

seq.) ;  his  specification  of  the  dates  of  the  supper  and 
the  crucifixion ;  his  relation  of  the  circumstances 
attending  the  last  journey  of  Jesus  to  Jerusalem.  Let 
the  reader  compare  the  Evangelist  in  these  places 
with  corresponding  passages  in  the  Synoptics,  and 
he  will  feel  that  he  has  in  his  hands  an  independent 
and  accurately  informed  historian. 

When  Baur,  leaving  the  special  criticism  of  the 
Gospel,  proceeds  to  state  his  conception  of  the  charac¬ 
ter  and  motives  of  the  author  of  this  extraordinary 
composition,  he  betrays,  if  we  mistake  not,  in  his 
lowered,  apologetic  tone,  some  feeling  of  embarrass¬ 
ment.  What  conception  have  the  Tubingen  critics 
of  the  writer  of  this  Gospel  ?  He  was  a  man,  as 
Baur  says,  of  remarkable  mind,  of  an  elevated  spirit, 
and  penetrated  with  a  warm,  adoring  faith  in  Christ 
as  the  Son  of  God  and  Saviour  of  the  world.  That 
faith  must  have  been  founded  on  the  evangelical 
history.  At  least,  it  must  have  involved  a  reverential 
sense  of  the  sacredness  of  that  history.  How  could 
such  a  man  fabricate  a  life  of  his  Master,  as  a  sub¬ 
stitute  for  the  authentic  lives  with  which  he  was 
acquainted?  How  could  he  pervert,  distort,  falsify 
transactions,  with  the  reality  of  which  his  holiest  feel¬ 
ings  were  bound  up ;  artfully  assuming  to  be  an 
apostle  and  confidant  of  the  Lord,  for  the  sake  of 
ascribing  to  him  discourses  that  he  never  uttered  and 
deeds  that  he  never  performed !  Baur  compares  the 


REFUTATION  OF  BAUR. 


149 


Evangelist  with  the  Apostle  Paul.1  He,  says  Baur, 
was  not  one  of  the  original  disciples.  It  was  only 
through  visions  that  he  personally  knew  Christ.  And 
Baur  draws  a  deliberate  parallel  between  the  Apostle 
to  the  Gentiles,  and  the  unknown  but  gifted  and 
ardently  believing  author  of  this  Gospel.  The  com¬ 
parison  is  an  unhappy  one  for  his  theory.  Imagine 
the  Apostle  Paul  sitting  down  to  fabricate  a  fictitious 
history  of  the  Saviour !  Imagine  him  casting  away 
the  authentic  deeds  and  words  of  Christ  and  invent¬ 
ing  in  the  room  of  them  a  fictitious  tale  of  his  life  ! 
The  thought  of  so  sacrilegious  an  act  could  never 
occur  to  his  earnest  soul.  Had  it  been  suggested  by 
another,  with  what  indignation  and  horror  would  he 
have  repelled  the  proposal !  No  reader  of  the  Pauline 
Epistles  will  have  a  doubt  on  this  point.  Yet  an  im¬ 
posture  even  more  flagrant  is  attributed  to  the 
author  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  for  he  claims  to  be  a  com¬ 
panion  of  Christ ;  while  at  the  same  time  his  accusers 
associate  him  with  Paul,  as  a  counterpart  in  intellec¬ 
tual  and  moral  qualities,  and  in  the  depth  and  ardor  of 
his  faith  in  the  Lord.  The  religionists,  weak-minded 
and  of  obscure  moral  perceptions,  who  are  responsible 
for  the  clumsy  fabrications  found  in  the  apocryphal 
Gospels,  for  the  most  part  confined  themselves  to 
those  periods  of  Christ’s  life  where  the  canonical 
authors  are  silent,  such  as  the  infancy  of  the  Lord. 
They  sought  to  connect  with  the  authentic  narratives 

1  Baur’s  Kan.  Evangelien ,  s.  384. 


150  GENUINENESS  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 

their  silly  inventions.  It  was  reserved  for  the  writer 
of  the  fourth  Gospel  to  attain  to  that  pitch  of  audacity, 
or  that  confusion  as  to  the  distinction  between  truth 
and  falsehood,  which  qualified  him  to  extend  his 
cleverly  executed  fraud  over  the  whole  contents  of 
the  evangelical  history.  And  yet  he  was  one  fit  to  be 
placed  in  the  same  category  with  Paul ! 

It  is  incredible  that  a  work  of  the  power  and 
loftiness  of  the  fourth  Gospel  should  have  sprung  up 
in  the  second  century.  Let  any  one  who  would 
understand  the  difference  between  the  apostolic  and 
the  next  following  age  undertake  to  read  the  Apostolic 
Lathers.  He  will  be  conscious  at  once  that  he  has 
passed  into  another  atmosphere.  He  has  descended 
from  the  heights  of  inspiration  to  the  level  of  ordinary, 
and  often  feeble,  thinking.  In  the  first  half  of  the 
second  century  there  is  no  writer  of  marked  origi¬ 
nality  ;  none  who  can  be  called  fresh  or  suggestive. 
To  set  a  work  like  the  fourth  Gospel  in  that  age  is  a 
literary  anachronism.  That  a  writer,  towering  so 
above  all  his  contemporaries,  should  stoop  to  wear  a 
mask,  and  gain  his  end  by  a  hateful,  jesuitical  contri¬ 
vance,  is  a  supposition  burdened  with  difficulties.  The 
irrational  character  of  this  hypothesis,  Neander  has 
well  shown  in  a  passage  which  is  valuable  alike  for 
its  thoughts  and  for  the  source  whence  they  come,  and 
with  which  we  conclude  the  present  Essay. 

“  The  whole  development  of  the  Church  from 
Justin  Martyr  onward  testifies  to  the  presence  of  such 


REFUTATION  OF  BAUR. 


151 


a  Gospel,  which  operated  powerfully  on  men’s  minds. 
It  cannot  be  explained  from  any  succeeding  mental 
tendency  in  the  following  age,  nor  from  the  amalgama¬ 
tion  of  several.  To  be  sure,  this  production  existed 
as  a  representation  of  a  higher  unity,  as  a  reconciling 
element  with  reference  to  the  contrarieties  of  that  age, 
and  could  exert  an  attractive  power  over  minds  of 
so  opposite  a  kind  as  a  Heracleon,  a  Clement  of  Alex¬ 
andria,  an  Irenaeus,  and  a  Tertullian.  Where  should 
we  be  able  to  find  in  that  age  a  man  who  was  eleva¬ 
ted  above  its  contrarieties  of  opinion  [Gegensatze], 
by  which  everything  is  more  or  less  swayed?  And 
a  man  of  so  superior  a  Christian  soul,  must  needs 
skulk  in  the  dark,  avail  himself  of  such  a  mask, 
instead  of  appearing  openly  in  the  consciousness  of 
all-conquering  truth  and  in  the  feeling  of  his  mental 
preeminence !  Such  a  man,  so  exalted  above  all  the 
church  fathers  of  that  century,  had  no  need,  forsooth, 
to  shrink  from  the  conflict.  He  must  certainly  have 
put  more  confidence  in  the  might  of  truth  than  in 
these  arts  of  darkness  and  falsehood.  And  how  can 
it  be  shown  that  such  a  man,  when  he  is  contemplated 
from  the  point  of  view  of  his  own  age,  would  have 
been  restrained  by  no  reverence  for  sacred  history,  by 
no  scruples,  from  falsifying  a  history,  the  contents 
of  which  were  holy  to  him,  through  arbitrary  fictions, 
manufactured  in  the  interest  of  a  given  dogmatic 
tendency, — through  lies,  in  fact,  which  were  to  find 
their  justification  in  the  end  to  be  attained  by  means 


152  GENUINENESS  OE  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 


of  them  ?  And  how  unskilfully  would  he  have  pro¬ 
ceeded  if,  in  order  to  attain  his  end,  he  presented  the 
history  of  Christ  in  a  way  that  was  in  absolute  con¬ 
trast  with  the  universally  accepted  tradition?  Nay, 
only  from  such  an  apostle,  who  stood  in  such  a  rela¬ 
tion  to  Christ  as  a  John  stood,  who  had  thus  taken  up 
into  his  own  being  the  impression  and  image  of  that 
unique  personality,  could  proceed  a  work  which  stands 
in  such  a  relation  to  the  contrarieties  of  the  post- 
apostolic  age.  It  is  a  work  out  of  one  gush,  original 
throughout.  The  Divine  in  its  own  nature  has  this 
power  of  composing  differences,  but  never  could  a 
product  so  fresh,  so  original  in  its  power  [urkraftiges], 
proceed  from  a  contrived,  shrewdly  planned,  recon¬ 
ciliation  of  differences.  This  Gospel,  if  it  do  not 
emanate  from  the  Apostle  John  and  point  to  that 
Christ,  the  intuition  of  whom,  on  the  part  of  the 
writer,  gave  birth  to  it,  is  the  greatest  of  enigmas.5’ 1 

1  Neander’s  Geschichte  cl.  PJlanz.  u.  Leit.  dev  Eirche ,  4  A.  B.  2, 
s.  637 


i 


ESSAY  III. 


RECENT  DISCUSSIONS  UPON  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE 
FIRST  THREE  GOSPELS. 

The  characteristics  which  belong  in  common  to 
the  first  three  Gospels,  and  distinguish  them  from  the 
Gospel  of  John,  we  suppose  to  be  familiar  to  the 
reader.  The  first  three  Gospels — the  Synoptics — 
dwell  chiefly  upon  the  Galilean  ministry  of  Jesus. 
Compared  with  John,  they  are  less  heedful  of  the 
chronological  order.  In  truth,  the  chronological  out¬ 
line  of  the  Saviour’s  ministry  can  be  gathered  from 
the  fourth  Gospel  alone.  The  Synoptics  not  only 
have  a  large  amount  of  matter  in  common,  but 
their  consonance  in  phraseology  extends  too  far  to 
be  the  result  of  accident;  at  the  same  time  that 
the  divergences,  existing  side  by  side  with  this  resem¬ 
blance,  equally  demand  an  explanation.  This  mingled 
divergence  and  coincidence  have  put  to  the  test  the 
ingenuity  of  critics.  One  general  theory  is  that  of  an 
original  Gospel,  existing  prior  to  the  three,  but  revised 
or  enlarged  by  each  historian  independently.  But 
this  theory  has  two  branches,  there  being  some  who 
hold  that  the  original  Gospel  was  a  written  work, 
whilst  others  consider  it  a  mass  of  oral  tradition  which 


154  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FIRST  THREE  GOSPELS. 

had  acquired  a  fixed  form.  The  other  general  theory 
is  that  of  a  priority  on  the  part  of  one  of  the  evange¬ 
lists,  the  use  of  whose  work  by  a  successor  gives  occa¬ 
sion  to  the  peculiarity  in  question.  But  the  various 
hypotheses  which  have  been  brought  forward  under 
this  theory,  or  the  different  views  as  to  the  order 
in  which  the  Gospels  were  Written,  exhaust  the  possi¬ 
bilities  of  supposition.  They  form,  in  fact,  an  ex¬ 
ample  in  permutation.  Matthew,  Luke,  and  Mark, 
was  the  series  in  the  hypothesis  of  Griesbach,  which 
has  been  extensively  followed.  Another  set  of  critics 
are  equally  confident  that  the  precedence  in  age 
belongs  to  Mark.1  Others,  again,  are  satisfied  with 
neither  of  these  views.  The  long-continued  diversity 
of  opinion  on  the  subject  is  a  sign  of  the  difficulty  of 
the  problem.  This  problem  we  do  not  propose  to 
discuss  in  the  present  Essay.  We  might  even  waive 
the  question  whether  these  three  narratives  were  com¬ 
posed  by  the  persons  to  whom  they  are  respectively 
ascribed,  were  it  not  that  this  question  cannot  be 
wholly  disconnected  from  the  proposition  which  we 
deem  to  be  of  prime  importance.  Could  it  be  shown, 
as  is  maintained  by  some  critics  who  accept  the  narra¬ 
tive  as  substantially  historical  and  credible,  that  the 
first  Gospel  was  not  written  by  Matthew,  the  propo¬ 
sition  with  which  we  are  at  present  concerned,  would 

1  For  a  full  classification  of  critical  opinions  on  this  subject,  see 
Meyer’s  Einleitung  to  the  first  volume  of  his  commentary  on  the 
N.  T.,  or  Boltzmann's  recent  work,  Die  Synoplische  Evangclien. 


AIM  OF  THE  SKEPTICAL  SCHOOL. 


155 


not  be  seriously  affected.  What,  then,  is  the  question 
of  fundamental  importance,  on  which  the  credibility 
of  the  Gospel  history  turns? 

The  main  thing  which  the  skeptical  school  seeks  to 
accomplish,  as  far  as  the  first  three  Gospels  are  con¬ 
cerned,  is  to  bring  down  their  date  into  the  post-apos¬ 
tolic  age.  History  is  testimony.  The  credibility  of 
testimony  depends — supposing  that  those  who  give  it 
wish  to  tell  the  truth — on  their  means  of  information. 
The  credibility  of  the  Gospels  is  conditioned  on  the 
fact  that  they  emanate  either  from  actual  witnesses  of 
the  events  recorded,  or  from  well-informed  contempo¬ 
raries.  If  it  could  be  established  that  these  narratives 
were  drawn  up  long  after  the  actors  in  the  events,  and 
the  generation  contemporaneous  with  them,  had  passed 
away — that  they  comprise  floating  stories  and  tradi¬ 
tions  which  were  gathered  up  at  or  after  the  end  of 
the  century  in  which  Christ  and  his  immediate  disci¬ 
ples,  and  those  who  heard  their  teaching,  lived — their 
historical  value  might  well  be  called  in  question.  To 
support  some  hypothesis  of  this  kind,  or  at  least 
to  throw  a  mist  of  uncertainty  over  the  whole  question 
of  the  origin  and  date  of  the  Gospels,  is  the  end  and 
aim  of  skeptical  criticism.  We,  on  our  part,  maintain 
that  nothing  has  been  brought  forward  in  behalf 
of  the  skeptical  cause,  which  tends  to  weaken  the 
established  view  that  the  Gospels  belong  to  the  apos¬ 
tolic  age,  embody  the  testimony  of  the  eyewitnesses 
and  earwitnesses  of  the  life  of  Christ,  and  come 


156 


ORIGIN  OF  THE  FIRST  THREE  GOSPELS. 


down  to  us  with  the  seal  and  sanction  of  the  apos¬ 
tolic  Church. 

We  are  not  required  to  review  in  detail  the  proofs 
of  the  early  date  of  these  histories.  It  will  be  suffi¬ 
cient  to  examine  the  grounds  on  which  the  received 
view  is  sought  to  be  impugned.  It  may  be  well, 
however,  to  remind  the  reader,  in  a  few  words,  of  the 
nature  of  the  proof  which  has  been  relied  on  for  estab¬ 
lishing  the  early  origin  of  the  first  three  Gospels 
— as  it  is  these  which  we  are  now  to  consider. 
Every  fair  and  discerning  reader  must  feel  how  well 
the  whole  tone  and  style  of  these  writings  comport 
with  the  belief  that  they  emanate  from  the  first  age  of 
Christianity.  Galilee  is  reflected  in  them  in  a  thousand 
indefinable  touches.  Christ — to  mention  a  single 
peculiarity — has  not  come  to  be  an  habitual  name  of 
the  Saviour,  as  it  begins  to  be  even  in  the  Epistles 
and  in  John,  but  is  purely  an  official  title.  In  these 
Gospels  he  is  simply  called  Jesus.  Eor  the  early  date 
of  the  first  three  Gospels,  we  have  the  unanimous 
voice  of  Christian  antiquity.  They  are  considered  and 
declared  by  the  early  Church  to  be  authoritative  pro¬ 
ductions  handed  down  from  the  apostolic  age.  We 
find  in  the  writers  of  the  post-apostolic  period  no 
other  conception  of  the  life  and  ministry  of  Christ 
than  is  presented  in  the  canonical  Gospels.  We  meet 
here  and  there  with  a  saying  of  Christ  or  an  incident 
in  his  life  which  they  would  seem  to  have  derived 
from  some  other  source  of  knowledge ;  but  these  ex- 


DATE  OE  THE  SYNOPTICAL  GOSPELS. 


157 


ceptions  are  so  very  few  and  unimportant  as  to  render 
the  prevailing  fact  of  the  coincidence  between  the 
representation  of  the  Fathers  and  that  of  the  Gospels 
the  more  striking.  The  apostolic  Fathers  do  not 
formally  state  the  sources  whence  their  quotations  are 
drawn.  They  commonly  bring  forward  a  fact  of  the 
Saviour’s  life  or  a  passage  of  his  teaching,  without 
formal  reference  to  the  authority  from  which  they 
derived  it.  Nor  do  they  evince  any  care  for  verbal 
accuracy.  But  the  apostolic  Fathers,  the  contempo¬ 
raries  and  survivors  of  the  apostles,  contain  many 
passages  which  are  unmistakably  drawn  from  the 
synoptical  Gospels.  The  peculiar  method  of  intro¬ 
ducing  New  Testament  passages  favors  the  supposi¬ 
tion  that  they  quote  from  recognized  documents. 
At  least  in  one  important  passage,  an  authoritative 
written  source  is  expressly  referred  to.  Barnabas 
remarks : 1  “  Let  us  therefore  beware,  lest  it  should 
happen  to  us  as  it  is  written :  there  are  many  called, 
few  chosen.”  This  quotation,  which  is  found  in  Matt, 
xx.  16  and  xxii.  14,  is  introduced  by  the  same  phrase 
which  the  Jews  made  use  of  in  citing  from  their 
sacred  books.  Barnabas  referred  to  some  book  having 
a  like  authority  among  Christians,  and  in  no  other 
book  of  this  class  except  our  Matthew  is  the  passage 
found.  The  value  of  this  quotation  as  a  decisive 
proof  that,  when  it  was  made,  the  Gospel  of  Matthew 

1  c.  iv.  Whether  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas  be  genuine  or  not,  it  is 
certainly  very  early. 


158  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FIRST  THREE  GOSPELS. 

was  clothed  with  canonical  authority,  has  been  fully 
established  by  the  recent  discovery  of  the  Greek  text 
of  Barnabas  in  the  Codex  Sinai ticus.  By  this  docu¬ 
ment  the  phrase,  it  is  written ,  is  proved  to  be  a  part 
of  the  original,  and  not  an  addition  of  the  Latin 
translator,  as  Credner  and  others  had  been  inclined  to 
maintain.  The  Epistle  of  Barnabas  cannot  be  placed 
later  than  the  beginning  of  the  second  century. 
That  a  canon  of  the  New  Testament  had  begun  to  be 
formed,  is  also  clearly  indicated  by  this  manner  of 
quotation.  That  Matthew  did  not  stand  as  the  sole 
Gospel  in  this  canon,  Tischendorf  has  argued  on  good 
grounds.1  The  drift  of  the  evidence  points  to  the 
conclusion  that  the  four  Gospels  enjoyed  then  the 
preeminence  which  they  bear  in  Justin  and  the  wri¬ 
ters  that  follow  him.  This  we  know,  that  the  long 
scrutiny  which  has  been  directed  to  the  quotations  in 
Justin  has  established,  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt,  the 
fact  of  a  use  by  him  of  all  of  our  canonical  Gospels. 
And  Justin  was  born  a  little  more  than  ten  years 
before  the  end  of  the  first  century,  and  less  than 
twenty  years  after  the  capture  of  Jerusalem,  and  at  a 
time  when  the  Apostle  John  was  probably  still  living. 
Erom  Matthew  and  Luke  especially,  his  citations  are 
very  numerous. 

Let  us  now  take  up  the  Synoptics  in  their  order, 
commencing  with 


1  See  Tischendorf,  Warm  wurden  die  Evangelien  vcrfasst  ?  p.  42  seq. 


MATTHEW. 


159 


MATTHEW. 

I.  We  begin  with  an  examination  of  the  tes¬ 
timony  of  Papias,  which,  in  respect  to  both  Mat¬ 
thew  and  Mark,  is  most  valuable,  and  has  properly 
attracted  the  earnest  attention  of  modern  critics. 
Renan  builds  upon  this  testimony,  or  rather  upon  his 
misconception  of  it,  his  theory  respecting  the  origin 
of  the  Gospels.  Scholars  of  every  school  unite  in 
their  estimate  of  the  importance  to  be  attached  to  this 
piece  of  evidence. 

Papias  was  bishop  of  Hierapolis,  in  Phrygia,  in  the 
first  half  of  the  second  century.  Pie  is  described  by 
Irenaeus 1  as  “  an  ancient  man,”  a  contemporary  and 
friend  of  Poly  carp,  who  was  a  disciple  of  John  the 
Evangelist.  Irenaeus  also  states  that  Papias  had 
himself  heard  the  Apostle  John,  but  Eusebius  con¬ 
siders  that  Irenaeus  errs  in  this  particular  by  wrongly 
interpreting  the  language  of  Papias.  But  Papias  says 
of  himself  that  he  made  inquiries  of  many  persons 
who  had  been  familiar  with  the  apostles,  and  he  was 
certainly  acquainted  with  John  the  Presbyter,  who 
was  a  contemporary  of  John  the  Apostle  at  Ephesus. 
Partly,  but  not  wholly,  on  account  of  his  millenarian 
views,  so  offensive  to  Eusebius,  Papias  is  pronounced 
by  the  latter  a  man  of  inferior  talents.  But  however 
moderate  his  intellectual  powers,  he  was  justly  re¬ 
garded  as  an  honest  witness  or  reporter  of  what  he 


1  Quoted  in  Euseb.,  H.  En  Lib.  iii.  c.  39. 


160  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FIRST  THREE  GOSPELS. 

had  seen  and  heard.1  lie  reports  what  he  had  re¬ 
ceived  from  companions  of  the  apostles.  He  busied 
himself  with  gathering  up  from  oral  tradition  the 
declarations  of  the  apostles,  which  he  published,  with 
comments  of  his  own,  in  a  work  consisting  of  five 
books.  From  this  work,  Eusebius  presents  us  with 
the  following  extract : 

“  And  John  the  Presbyter  said  this  :  ‘Mark  being 
the  interpreter  of  Peter  wrote  accurately  whatever  he 
remembered,  though  indeed  not  [setting  down]  in 
order  what  was  said  or  done  by  Christ,  for  he  did  not 
hear  the  Lord,  nor  did  he  follow  him :  but  afterwards, 
as  I  said,  [he  followed]  Peter,  who  adapted  his  dis¬ 
courses  to  the  necessities  of  the  occasion,  but  not  so  as 
to  furnish  a  systematic  account  of  the  oracles  of  the 
Lord  ( xvQiaxcov  loylcov  or  Xoycov) ;  so  that  Mark 
committed  no  fault  when  he  wrote  some  things  as  he 
recollected  them.  Eor  of  one  thing  he  took  care — to 
pass  by  nothing  wThich  he  heard,  and  not  to  falsify  in 
anything/ ”  “Such,”  adds  Eusebius,  “is  the  relation 
in  Papias  concerning  Mark.  But  of  Matthew  this  is 
said :  £  Matthew  wrote  the  oracles  {roc  Xoyicc)  in  the 
Hebrew  tongue ;  and  every  one  interpreted  them  as  he 
was  able/” 

1  The  often-quoted  passage  in  Papias  relative  to  the  colossal 
grapes  to  be  expected  in  the  Millennial  age  awakens  no  doubt  as  to 
his  veracity.  It  only  shows  that  apocryphal  sayings  of  Christ  were 
early  set  in  circulation,  and  by  its  contrast  with  the  style  of  the 
canonical  Gospels,  confirms  their  veracity. 


MATTHEW. 


161 


The  passage  had  always  been  considered,  up  to  a 
recent  date,  as  referring  to  our  Gospels  of  Matthew 
and  Mark.  It  was  suggested,  however,  by  Schleier- 
macher  that  the  logia ,  which  we  have  rendered  ora¬ 
cles,  signifies  only  discourses ;  and  hence  a  number 
of  critics,  including  the  distinguished  commentator, 
Meyer,  have  founded  upon  this  testimony  of  Papias 
the  opinion  that  at  the  basis  of  our  first  Gospel,  and 
prior  to  it,  was  a  collection  by  Matthew  of  the  teach¬ 
ings  of  Christ,  and  that  the  canonical  Gospel  was  the 
product  of  a  subsequent  addition  of  narrative  matter 
to  that  earlier  work. 

We  believe  this  restriction  of  the  sense  of  logia , 
in  the  passage,  to  be  unauthorized  and  erroneous,  and 
that  the  old  interpretation  of  Papias,  the  interpreta¬ 
tion  which  Eusebius  evidently  gave  the  passage,  is  the 
true  one.  It  is  well,  however,  to  see  how  the  case 
stands,  provided  the  term  receives  the  limited  meaning 
which  these  critics  affix  to  it.  Papias,  in  what  he 
says  of  Matthew,  does  not  quote  the  Presbyter ; 
yet  it  may  safely  be  concluded  that  he  derived  this 
information  from  the  same  earlier  authorities  whence 
the  rest  of  his  work  was  drawn. 

The  principal  remark  we  have  to  make  here  is, 
that  even  supposing  logia  to  mean  discourses  simply, 
yet  Papias  is  speaking,  as  Meyer  concedes  and  main¬ 
tains,  aoristically — of  something  that  had  occurred  at 
a  former  time,  but  was  no  longer  the  fact.  That 

is,  when  he  says  that  “  everv  one  interpreted  the 

11 


162  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FIRST  THREE  GOSPELS. 

Hebrew  Matthew  as  he  could  ” — fyjurjv&vot  S’  aura 
cog  r)Svvaro  ‘txaGroc, — he  means,  and  implies  in  his 
language,  that  the  necessity  of  rendering  the  Hebrew 
into  the  Greek  had  once  existed,  to  be  sure,  but  ex¬ 
isted  no  longer.  Why  not  ?  Evidently  because  the 
Greek  Matthew  was  now  in  the  hands  of  Christians. 
This  Greek  Matthew  which  Papias  and  his  contempo¬ 
raries  used,  was  unquestionably  our  first  Gospel  in  its 
present  form.  Our  Greek  Matthew  is  represented  by 
the  Eathers  to  be  a  translation  of  a  Hebrew  Gospel. 
If  we  admit  the  correctness  of  the  tradition,  then,  as 
Meyer  shows,  the  Hebrew  Matthew  must  have  re¬ 
ceived  its  supplement  of  narrative  matter,  and  in  its 
complete  form  been  generally  connected  with  the 
name  of  this  apostle,  before  the  Greek  version  was 
made.  The  hypothesis  that  this  Gospel  received  es¬ 
sential  changes  or  additions  of  matter,  subsequent  to 
the  time  of  Papias,  is  excluded  by  an  overwhelming 
weight  of  evidence.  There  is,,  indeed,  other  and  suffi¬ 
cient  proof  that  our  Matthew  existed  in  its  present 
form  within  thirty  or  forty  years  of  the  Saviour’s 
death.  But  independently  of  this  proof,  and  even 
when  the  sense  of  logia  is  limited,  the  testimony  of 
Papias  himself — still  more,  if  that  testimony  emanates, 
as  is  probably  the  fact,  from  pupils  of  apostles  whom 
he  had  consulted — carries  back  the  date  of  our  Mat¬ 
thew,  in  its  present  form,  into  the  apostolic  age. 

But  if  logia  cover  the  narrative  matter  as  well  as 
the  discourses,  and  if  Papias  thus  refers  to  the  Gospel 


MATTHEW. 


163 


of  Matthew  as  we  have  it,  the  early  origin  of  the 
Gospel  is  explicitly  attested. 

That  such  is  the  real  purport  of  the  logia  is 
apparent  from  the  following  considerations  : 

1.  The  word  is  capable  of  this  more  extended 
import.  It  denotes  sacred  words — oracles ;  and  with 
its  kindred  terms  has  this  meaning  not  only  in  ecclesi¬ 
astical  writers,  but  also  in  the  New  Testament.  It  is 
probably  used  in  Heb.  v.  12  as  an  equivalent  for 
the  whole  Christian  revelation.  The  restriction  of  its 
meaning  by  Meyer,  in  this  place,  is  opposed  by  other 
good  critics,  including  Bleek.1  We  have  a  clear 
example  in  Luke  i.  4  :  “  that  thou  mightest  know  the 
certainty  of  those  things — hoycov — wherein  thou  hast 
been  instructed.”  Luke  writes  a  consecutive  history 
of  the  life  and  ministry  of  Jesus  in  order  to  assure 
Theophilus  of  the  certainty  of  the  things  which  were 
believed  among  Christians,  and  had  been  taught  him. 
The  contents  of  the  Gospel  of  Luke  which  follows, 


1  \6yia  is  used  for  the  Old  Testament — the  whole  revelation  of 
God — in  Romans  iii.  2.  Other  passages  where  the  word  is  found, 
are  Wisdom  xvi.  11  (comp.  v.  5)  ;  Acts  vii.  38 ;  1  Peter  iv.  11.  For  the 
sense  of  the  word  in  ecclesiastical  writers,  see  Suidas  su~b  voce  ;  also 
Wettstein,  T.  ii.  p.  36.  Important  illustrative  passages  are  Ignatius  ad 
Smyr.  c.  iii,  and  the  classification  of  the  Scriptures  by  Ephraem  Syrus 
(in  Pliotius).  In  this  last  place,  ta  avpiaxci  \6yia  seems  to  be  plainly’ 
a  designation  of  the  Gospels.  We  may  observe  here,  that  even  if  the 
sense  of  logia  in  Papias  were,  philologically  considered,  doubtful,  the 
existence  of  another  work  than  our  Matthew,  for  which  there  is  not 
a  particle  of  evidence  from  any  other  source,  could  not  be  inferred 
from  a  single  doubtful  expression. 


161  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FIRST  THREE  GOSPELS. 

constitute  the  logoi.  Even  Meyer  allows  that  the 
narrative  matter  is  included  in  the  word,  though 
indirectly.  The  objection  of  Credner,  that  the  applica¬ 
tion  of  the  term  logia ,  in  the  sense  of  divine  words,  to 
the  New  Testament  writings,  presupposes  a  view  of 
their  inspiration  which  was  not  prevalent  so  early  as 
the  time  of  Papias,  has,  in  our  judgment,  no  validity. 
The  reverence  of  Papias  for  the  declarations  of  the 
apostles,  which  breathes  through  the  whole  passage  in 
Eusebius,  accords  well  with  such  a  mode  of  character¬ 
izing  them.  The  form  of  the  quotation  from  Matthew 
in  Barnabas,  on  which  we  have  commented  above, 
shows  the  error  of  Credner’s  opinion.  The  whole  of 
the  apostles’  testimony  in  regard  to  the  teachings  and 
works  of  Christ,  constituted  the  logia — the  oracles  of 
the  Lord,  or  the  oracles  pertaining  to  the  Lord.1 

2.  It  is  well-nigh  certain  that  in  the  account  which 
Papias  gives  of  Mark's  Gospel,  the  logia  includes  the 
works  as  well  as  words  of  Christ.  Papias  attributes  a 
want  of  order  to  Mark’s  record  of  the  words  and 
works  of  Christ — the  things  c<  said  or  done  ”  by  Him. 
He  then  proceeds  to  explain  the  reason  of  this  peculi¬ 
arity.  Mark  had  derived  his  information  from  listening 
to  the  discourses  of  Peter.  But  Peter  was  in  the  habit 


1  It  has  been  thought  by  some  that  the  works  and  words  of  Christ 
were  termed  the  “  logia  of  the  Lord,”  as  being  the  total  expression 
which  lie  made  of  Himself.  But  this  is  less  natural.  Nor  do  we 
think  that  other  critics  are  right  in  referring  the  logia  to  the  dis¬ 
courses,  as  being  the  predominant  feature  of  the  gospel,  or  the 
feature  with  which  Papias  was  chiefly  concerned. 


MATTHEW. 


165 


of  selecting  his  matter  to  suit  the  occasion,  and  there¬ 
fore  did  not  furnish  a  systematic  statement  of  the  logia 
of  the  Lord.1  How  can  the  logia  here  denote  anything 
less  than  c<  the  things  said  or  done  ?  ”  Papias  adds, 
that  in  writing  some  things  according  to  his  recollec¬ 
tion,  Mark  committed  no  fault.  Even  here  Meyer’s 
lexical  scrupulosity  would  fain  limit  the  logia  to  the 
discourses  of  Christ,  and  then  make  the  “  some  things,” 
which  Mark  set  down  without  following  the  chrono¬ 
logical  order,  relate  only  to  this  part  of  his  reports. 
But  this  interpretation  is  obviously  strained,  and 
appears  to  be  directly  overthrown  by  the  circumstance 
that  Papias  attributes  the  absence  of  order  to  Mark’s 
reports  of  the  deeds  as  well  as  the  words  of  Christ. 
Why  should  Peter  observe  the  chronological  order 
more  carefully  in  referring  to  incidents  in  the  life  of 
Christ,  than  in  recalling  his  discourses  ?  That  logia 
has  the  comprehensive  meaning  in  the  description  of 
Matthew,  is  thus  proved  by  the  extended  sense  which 
we  are  under  the  necessity  of  attributing  to  it  in  the 
passage  that  follows  respecting  Mark. 

3.  If  the  logia  do  not  embrace  the  whole  of  Mat¬ 
thew,  then  Papias  furnishes  no  account  of  the  origin 
of  the  Gospel,  with  the  exception  of  that  part  of  it 
which  includes  the  discourses  of  Christ.  He  had  in 
his  hands,  as  Meyer  and  all  sound  critics  admit,  our 
complete  Gospel  of  Matthew.  It  would  be  natural 
for  him,  if  he  began  to  give  an  account  of  its  origin, 

1  The  reading  of  Heinichen  here  is  \6yoov  ;  but  Xoy'ucv  seems  to  be 
the  generally  adopted  reading  among  critics.  So  Meyer  and  Bleek. 


166  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FIRST  THREE  GOSPELS. 

to  explain  liow  the  narrative  portions  of  the  Gospel  were 
brought  into  it.  Eusebius  takes  it  for  granted  that 
Papias  is  explaining  the  origin  of  the  canonical  Gospel  of 
Matthew,  and  for  this  reason  cites  the  passage.  Neither 
Eusebius  nor  any  writer  before  him,  nor  any  writer  for 
fifteen  centuries  after  him,  knew  anything  of  a  collection 
of  discourses  of  Matthew,  or  of  any  work  of  Matthew, 
save  the  entire  canonical  Gospel  which  bears  his  name. 

4.  Irenaeus,  whom  Meyer  elsewhere  1  pronounces 
an  independent  witness  on  the  subject,  says  that  Mat¬ 
thew  wrote  his  Gospel  in  the  Hebrew.  Irenaeus  gives 
the  same  tradition  which  is  given  by  Papias,  who  was 
an  old  man  when  Irenaeus  was  a  youth.  Irenaeus 
knows  nothing  of  a  composition  of  a  report  of  the 
Saviour’s  discourses  by  the  Apostle  Matthew,  which 
received  a  narrative  supplement  from  some  later  hand. 
The  other  writers  of  the  second  century  are  equally 
ignorant  of  a  fact  which,  if  it  be  contained  in  the  testi¬ 
mony  of  Papias,  must  have  been  generally  known. 

5.  The  work  of  Papias  himself  was  entitled  an 
Exposition  of  the  Oracles  ( 'koyicov )  of  the  Lord.  But, 
as  we  know  from  the  fragments  that  remain,  it  was 
partly  made  up  of  narrative  matter.  Incidents  in  the 
life  of  Christ,  and  teachings  of  Christ,  equally  found  a 
place  in  this  work.  Meyer,  unjustifiably  as  we  think, 
would  make  the  narrative  matter  in  Papias  a  part,  not 
of  the  logia,  but  of  the  Exposition  attached  to  the 
lofjia.  The  truth  seems  to  be  that  Papias  gathered  up 


1  Meyer’s  Einl.  z.  Matthaus ,  s,  5, 


MATTHEW. 


167 

all  that  he  could  hear  of  what  the  disciples  of  Christ 
had  reported  of  him,  and  accompanied  this  record  with 
observations  of  his  own. 

We  are  persuaded,  and  we  trust  that  the  con¬ 
siderations  above  presented  will  convince  our  readers, 
that  this  restriction  of  the  sense  of  logia ,  which  goes 
no  farther  back  than  Schleiermacher,  and  is  a  subtlety 
that  escaped  Eusebius  and  Irenaeus,  is  without  any 
good  foundation.  And  we  are  brought  to  the  conclu¬ 
sion  that  the  testimony  of  Papias,  that  “  ancient  man,” 
who  had  been  conversant  with  many  of  the  disciples 
of  the  apostles,  establishes  the  fact  of  the  origin  of 
the  first  Gospel  in  the  apostolic  age. 

II.  The  relation  of  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  to  the 
uncanonical  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews,  affords  proof  of 
the  early  date  of  the  former. 

The  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews,  written  in  the  Aramaic 
dialect,  was  the  most  widely  known  of  all  the  uncanon 
ical  Gospels.  It  was  the  Gospel  in  use  among  the 
Hebrew  Christian  sects,  which  were  separated  from  the 
general  Church.  It  existed,  however,  in  varying  forms. 
Thus,  the  stricter  Ebionites  had  cut  off  the  first  two 
chapters,  in  which  the  circumstances  attending  the 
miraculous  birth  of  the  Saviour  were  related.  The 
numerous  allusions  in  the  Fathers  to  the  Gospel  of  the 
Hebrews — the  tvayytliov  xa{F  cE/3qcuouq — make  it 
clear  that  it  had  a  close  resemblance  4o  the  canonical 
Matthew.  A  careful  comparison  demonstrates  that  it 


168  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FIRST  THREE  GOSPELS. 

was  our  Matthew,  altered  and  amplified.  That  the 
priority  belongs  to  the  canonical  Gospel — whether  it 
existed  originally  in  the  Hebrew  or  the  Greek,  we  will 
not  now  inquire — is  established.  Tor  example,  in  the 
Latin  translation  of  Origen’s  commentary  on  Matthew, 
there  is  quoted  from  the  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews  a 
narrative  of  the  conversation  of  the  young  man  with 
Jesus,  a  passage  corresponding  to  Matthew  xix.  16  seq. 
The  young  man,  as  in  Matthew,  comes  to  Jesus  with 
his  question  as  to  the  method  of  attaining  eternal 
life.  Jesus  tells  him  to  obey  the  law  and  the  prophets. 
“  He  replies,  ‘  I  have  done  so/  Jesus  said  unto  him, 
‘come,  sell  all  that  thou  hast  and  divide  among  the 
poor,  and  come,  follow  me/  But  the  rich  man  began  to 
scratch  his  head ,  and  wTas  not  pleased,”  etc.  No  one  can 
doubt  in  regard  to  such  a  passage,  that  it  springs  from 
the  amplification  of  the  simple  narrative  in  Matthew. 
The  narrative  is  spun  out  with  apocryphal  details.1 

We  are  concerned  to  ascertain,  next,  the  age  of  the 
Gospel  of  the  Hebrews.  It  was  certainly  known  to 
Hegesippus,  before  the  middle  part  of  the  second 
century.  And  there  is  no  reason  to  think  that  it  was 
then  new.  Himself  a  Hebrew  Christian  by  birth,  he 
had  probably  been  long  acquainted  with  it.  But  we 
will  not  indulge  in  conjecture.  It  is  safe  to  affirm  that 
the  Church  received  no  evangelical  history  from  the 

1  The  priority  of  Matthew  has  been  convincingly  shown  by  vari- 

*  ° 

ons  writers;  among  them  by  Franck,  in  a  thorough  Article  in  the 
Studien  u.  Kriiiken ,  1848,  2. 


MATTHEW. 


1G9 


judaizing  Christians  after  the  latter  had  become  separa 
ted.  The  existence  of  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  among 
them — for  the  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews  was  an  altered 
Matthew — requires  us  to  conclude  that  it  enjoyed  a 
general  acceptance  before  the  Jewish- Christian  parties 
were  formed.  But  these  acquired  a  distinct  existence, 
according  to  the  trustworthy  testimony  of  Hegesippus, 
at  the  beginning,  or  about  the  beginning,  of  the  second 
century.  Before  this,  however,  and  from  the  time  of 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  the  movement  towards 
separation  began.  The  judaizing  Christians  looked 
with  growing  jealousy  and  hostility  upon  the  Gentile 
believers  and  their  churches.  To  our  mind,  it  is 
altogether  improbable  that  the  Gospel  of  Matthew 
could  have  been  composed,  and  have  been  accepted 
by  both  classes  of  Christians,  at  any  time  subsequent 
■ — to  say  the  least,  long  subsequent — to  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem  by  Titus.  Besides  the  difficulty  of  ac¬ 
counting  for  its  acceptance  on  both  sides,  on  the  sup¬ 
position  of  a  later  date,  the  partisan  feelings  of  the 
judaizing  Christian  would  infallibly  have  been  reflected 
on  its  pages.  But.  in  this  artless  chronicle  there  is 
not  the  slightest  ,  trace  of  judaizing  bitterness. 

III.  We  have  to  consider  now  the  prophecies  of 
the  second  advent  of  Christ,  which  are  contained  in 
Matthew,  in  their  bearing  on  the  date  of  the  Gospel. 

In  touching  upon  this  topic,  we  are  brought  in 
contact,  indeed,  with  the  principal  exegetical  difficulty 


170  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FIRST  THREE  GOSPELS. 

in  the  New  Testament.  The  final  advent  of  Christ  to 
judgment,  and  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  appear 
to  have  been  connected  together  in  time,  as  if  the 
former  were  to  follow  immediately  upon  the  latter. 
After  what  seems  clearly  to  be  a  prediction  of  the 
downfall  of  Jerusalem  (Matthew  xxiv.  1-29),  we  read 
that  “  immediately  {t vdtcog)  after  the  tribulation  of 
those  days,”  the  Son  of  Man  will  come  in  the  clouds 
of  heaven,  in  the  sight  of  “  all  the  tribes  ”  on  earth, 
and  “  gather  together  his  elect  from  the  four  winds, 
from  one  end  of  heaven  to  the  other  ”  (vs.  29-32, 
comp.  c.  xxv.  31  seq.  and  Luke  xxi.  27,  31).  And  we 
read  (in  ver.  34) :  “  this  generation  ( ytvtu )  shall  not 
pass,  till  all  these  things  be  fulfilled.” 

We  are  not  called  upon,  in  this  place,  to  consider 
the  difficulty  that  is  presented  by  these  passages.  The 
paramount  question  of  the  origin  and  date  of  the 
Gospel  is  the  question  which  we  have  in  hand.  That 
our  Saviour  did  not  predict  that  the  world  would  come 
to  an  end  instantly  on  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  is 
shown  by  other  parts  of  his  own  teaching.  He  is 
represented  in  the  synoptical  Gospels  as  declaring  that 
the  time  when  the  end  would  occur  was  not  a  subject 
of  Revelation,  but  a  secret  of  the  Rather.  In  a  more 
comprehensive  way,  he  said  to  the  disciples  (Acts  i.  7) : 
cc  It  is  not  for  you  to  know  the  times  or  seasons ,  which 
the  Rather  hath  put  in  his  own  power.”  And  the 
apostles,  though  hoping  and  looking  for  the  end,  did 
not  claim  in  their  Epistles  to  be  taught  by  Inspiration 


MATTHEW. 


171 


wlien  the  end  would  come.  Moreover,  there  are 
various  teachings  of  the  Saviour  in  regard  to  His  king¬ 
dom,  which  imply  a  slow  progress  and  a  long  operation 
of  the  gospel  in  the  world.  It  is  like  leaven.  It  is  like  a 
grain  of  mustard-seed.  It  is  the  salt  of  the  earth.  It 
is  to  be  preached  to  all  nations.  He  compares  Himself, 
as  to  the  moral  effect  of  His  death,  to  the  corn  of  wheat 
which,  if  it  do  not  fall  into  the  earth  and  die,  “  abideth 
alone  ;  but  if  it  die,  it  bringeth  forth  much  fruit.” 

We  can  afford,  in  the  present  discussion,  to  waive 
the  inquiry  how  these  predictions  as  they  are  set  down 
in  the  first  Gospel  (and  so  substantially  in  Mark  and 
Luke),  are  reconcilable  with  these  other  teachings  of 
Christ  and  with  historical  fact.  It  is  enough  that 
skeptics,  almost  with  one  voice,  have  maintained  that 
here  is  really  a  distinct  prediction  that  the  end  of  the 
world  would  occur  in  connection  with  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem  and  within  the  lifetime  of  the  generation 
then  on  the  stage.  Theodore  Parker  has  expressed 
this  view.  Gibbon  makes  the  supposed  prediction  a 
theme  of  his  elaborate  satire.  Now,  if  this  be  their 
interpretation,  they  are  compelled  to  acknowledge  that 
the  Gospel  which  contains  this  erroneous  prophecy 
appeared  in  its  present  form  before  Jerusalem  was 
captured  by  Titus,  or  before  the  year  70.  It  must 
have  been  written  as  early  as  thirty  or  forty  years  after 
the  Saviour’s  death.  No  Gospel- writer  would  set  forth 
without  explanation  a  prediction  of  a  mighty  event, 
which  all  his  readers  would  know  had  not  been  verified. 


172 


ORIGIN  OF  THE  FIRST  THREE  GOSPELS. 


No  writer  in  the  year  80,  or  90,  or  100,  would  fix 
the  date  of  the  end  of  the  world  at  the  destruction  of  Je¬ 
rusalem,  in  a  document  which  he  wished  to  be  believed. 

We  may  even  take  a  step  farther.  If  some  inter¬ 
pretations  of  the  passages  in  Matthew  be  adopted, 
which  recognize  an  infallible  accuracy  in  the  synoptical 
reports  of  the  Saviour’s  teaching,  yet  it  may  be  safely 
held  that  had  the  Evangelist  been  writing  at  a  later 
time,  some  explanation  would  have  been  thrown  in  to 
remove  the  seeming  discrepancy  between  prophecy  and 
fulfilment.  If  it  be  supposed,  for  example,  that  in 
the  perspective  opened  to  the  prophetic  vision,  two 
grand  events,  though  parted  in  reality  by  a  long 
.interval,  were  brought  together — as  distant  mountain- 
peaks  when  approached  are  found  to  be  far  apart — 
yet  it  would  be  natural  to  expect  that  when  the 
interval  had  actually  disclosed  itself  to  the  observer, 
some  intimation  of  the  fact  would  be  dropped.  So 
that  even  on  the  orthodox,  as  well  as  on  the  skeptical, 
interpretation  of  the  eschatology  in  the  Synoptics, 
their  early  date  is  manifest. 

It  remains  for  us  to  notice  the  Tubingen  hypo¬ 
thesis  concerning  Matthew.  Baur’s  general  theory  is 
not  the  mythical  theory,  but  “the  tendency- theory.” 
He  has  discussed  and  pointed  out  the  weakness  of  the 
procedure  of  Strauss  in  his  attempt  to  disprove  the 
statements  of  the  fourth  Gospel  by  opposing  to  them 
the  authority  of  the  Synoptics,  and  at  the  same  time 
to  contradict  the  Synoptics  by  quoting  the  fourth 


MATTHEW. 


173 


Gospel  against  them.  If  there  is  to  be  any  positive 
construction  of  the  evangelical  history,  as  Baur  per¬ 
ceived,  there  must  be  gained  somewhere  a  firm  stand¬ 
ing-place.  This  he  finds  in  the  first  Gospel.  Not 
that  even  this  Gospel  is  fully  authentic  and  historical. 
Yet  there  is  in  Matthew  a  substantial  kernel  of  his¬ 
torical  truth.  All  the  Gospels  are,  more  or  less,  the 
product  of  a  theological  tendency ;  that  is,  they  result 
from  the  artificial  recasting  and  amplifying  of  the  veri¬ 
table  history  in  order  to  suit  the  views  of  some  theo¬ 
logical  party  or  interest  in  the  primitive  church.  In 
Matthew,  the  Jewish- Christian  side  is  the  prevailing 
motive  determining  the  cast  and  tone  of  the  narrative. 
Luke  represents  the  opposite,  or  Gentile,  party.  But 
the  first  Gospel  is  less  inspired  by  a  definite,  dogmat¬ 
ical  interest,  which  leads  in  the  other  Gospels  to  the 
conscious  alteration  and  fabrication  of  history ;  and 
Baur  is  disposed  to  concede  to  Strauss  that  there  is  a 
larger  admixture  of  the  myth  or  the  unconscious  crea¬ 
tions  of  feeling  in  Matthew,  than  is  true  of  the 
remaining  Gospels. 

When  we  come  to  inquire  for  a  precise  explanation 
of  the  origin  of  the  first  Gospel,  we  are  met  with 
very  divergent  responses  from  the  various  choir-leaders 
of  the  Tubingen  school.  In  fact,  with  respect  to  the 
whole  of  the  special  criticism  by  which  they  seek 
to  convict  the  Gospels  of  being  tendenz-schriften ,  they 
are  hardly  less  at  variance  with  each  other  than 
with  the  Christian  world  generally.  Passages  that 


174  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FIRST  THREE  GOSPELS. 

are  confidently  quoted  by  one  critic  in  proof  of  a 
certain  “  tendency/’  are  alleged  by  another  as  illustra¬ 
tions  of  a  “  tendency  ”  exactly  opposite.  With  regard 
to  Matthew,  Hilgenfeld,  who  agrees,  in  this  particular, 
with  Strauss,,  does  not  limit  the  sense  of  the  logia  of 
Papias  so  as  to  exclude  narrative  matter;  yet  he 
pretends  to  be  able  to  dissect  the  first  Gospel  and  to 
separate  a  primitive  Matthew — an  Ur-Matthaus — from 
later  accretions.  We  are  absolved  from  the  necessity 
of  following  him  in  the  baseless  and  arbitrary  division 
which  he  seeks  to  run  through  the  contents  of  Mat¬ 
thew,  since  his  construction  has  gained  so  little  ap¬ 
plause  even  from  his  master.  But  we  may  attend  for 
a  moment  to  Baur’s  own  view.  He  appears  to  take 
the  logia  in  the  restricted  meaning,  and  to  attach  some 
importance  to  the  supposed  tradition  of  a  collection 
of  logia,  forming  the  basis  of  our  Matthew.  This 
hypothesis  we  have  already  examined.  Baur’s  effort 
to  bring  down  the  date  of  the  Gospel  into  the  second 
century  is  a  bad  failure.  Desirous  of  holding  that 
the  second  advent  is  foretold  as  immediately  subse¬ 
quent  to  the  predicted  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  he  is 
obliged  to  refer  the  latter  prediction  to  some  other 
war  than  that  of  Titus.  Accordingly,  he  interprets  it 
as  applying  to  the  war  of  Hadrian  in  the  year  131  or 
132,  and  therefore  fixes  the  date  of  the  composition  of 
the  Gospel  between  130  and  134!  It  is  unfortunate 
for  this  bold  assertion,  that  our  Matthew  was  an  au¬ 
thoritative  writing  among  Christians,  and  read  as  such 


MATTHEW. 


175 


in  their  assemblies  “  in  city  and  country,”  in  the  time 
of  Justin  Martyr,  who  was  born  near  the  end  of  the 
first  century.  But  aside  from  this  historical  testi¬ 
mony,  which  it  is  vain  to  attempt  to  invalidate,  Baur’s 
interpretation  can  be  easily  proved  to  be  palpably 
false.  In  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  foretold  in 
Matthew  (xxiv.  1-4)  the  temple  was  to  be  laid  in 
ruins.  This  was  accomplished  by  Titus,  and  not  by 
Hadrian.  With  what  face  then  can  the  prophecy  be 
referred  to  the  war  of  Hadrian  ?  It  is  doubtful,  in¬ 
deed,  whether,  in  this  last  war,  there  was  even  a  des¬ 
truction  of  the  city.  The  parallel  passages  in  the 
other  evangelists  (see  Luke  xxi.  5-7,  12,  20),  deter¬ 
mine  the  reference  of  the  prediction  to  the  war  of 
Titus,  beyond  the  possibility  of  doubt.  Moreover, 
“  this  generation  ”  was  not  to  pass  away  before  this 
event  was  to  occur.  Baur  claims  that  this  phrase — 
avTi\  ytvta — may  cover  a  period  as  long  as  a  century. 
But  this  claim  is  void  of  truth.  The'  phrase  every¬ 
where  in  the  New  Testament  signifies  the  average 
term  of  human  life,  and  was  held,  according  to  the 
Greek  usage,  to  be  equivalent  to  a  third  of  a  century. 
Besides,  explanatory  expressions  occur  in  the  prophet¬ 
ic  passages  of  Matthew,  which  define  the  meaning  of 
the  phrase  in  the  way  we  have  stated.1  The  diffi 
culty  presented  by  these  passages,  we  are  firmly  con¬ 
vinced,  is  not  to  be  escaped  by  affixing  another  than 
the  proper  and  uniform  meaning  to  this  phrase. 

1  See  Matthew  xvi.  27,  28. 


176  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FIRST  THREE  GOSPELS. 


The  forced  and  manifestly  false  interpretation  of 
Baur,  which  has  been  noticed  above,  is  due  to  the 
straits  into  which  he  is  brought  by  his  untenable 
theory.  Confronted  by  unimpeachable  historical 
witnesses,  he  is  not  only  obliged  to  ignore,  or  unjusti¬ 
fiably  to  disparage,  their  testimony,  but  also  to  resort 
to  shifts  in  interpretation  which  only  mark  the  des¬ 
peration  of  his  cause.  There  is  absolutely  nothing  to 
conflict  with  the  supposition  that  our  first  Gospel 
comes  down,  in  its  integrity,  from  the  apostolic 
Church ;  while  the  positive  evidence,  both  direct  and 
corroborative,  fully  establishes  the  fact. 


MARK. 

The  ancient  testimonies,  of  which  that  of  Papias  is 
the  first,  to  the  genuineness  and  early  date  of  the 
second  Gospel,  would  seem  to  preclude  the  possibility 
of  a  question  on  these  points.  Mark  is  declared  to 
have  been  an  attendant  of  Peter  and  to  have  derived 
his  knowledge  of  the  life  and  ministry  of  Jesus  from 
the  discourses  of  that  apostle.  This  is  substantially 
the  declaration  of  all  the  writers  in  the  second  half 
of  the  second  century ;  and  it  has  been  thought  by 
some  good  critics  that  even  as  early  as  Justin  Martyr, 
and  in  one  passage  of  Justin  himself,  the  Gospel  of 
Mark  was  styled  Peter’s  Gospel. 

But  it  has  been  contended  of  late  that  the  descrip¬ 
tion  of  Papias  does  not  answer  for  our  Mark  and 


MARK. 


177 


must  refer  to  some  other  work.  In  the  later  form  of 
the  theory,  Papias  is  made  to  describe  an  earlier  Mark 
— an  Ur-Markus ■ — which  is* the  germ  of  our  present 
Gospel. 

Now  of  the  existence  of  this  earlier  work  there  is 
no  intimation  in  any  of  the  Pathers.  How  did  the  fact 
of  its  existence  escape  the  knowledge  of  Irenaeus  and 
his  contemporaries  ?  When  did  all  the  manuscripts 
of  it  disappear?  In  truth,  the  theory  in  this  form 
is  preposterous,  and  even  Baur  is  driven  to  a  different 
hypothesis.  Before  attending  to  this,  however,  let  us 
revert  to  the  statements  of  Papias  and  see  how  far 
they  are  from  lending  support  to  the  notion  that  he 
had  in  mind  any  other  work  than  our  Mark. 

Papias,  or  John  the  Presbyter,  his  informant, 
represents  that  Mark,  though  a  careful  and  accurate 
writer,  depended  on  the  oral  discourses  of  Peter  for 
his  knowledge  and  therefore  did  not  dispose  his 
matter — tv  ragti — in  the  chronological  order.  This 
is  all  the  evidence  on  which  the  theory  of  an  earlier 
Mark  is  founded !  But,  in  any  event,  this  remark  is 
only  the  impression  of  an  individual  as  to  the  charac¬ 
ter  of  the  second  Gospel.  Pie  doubtless  compared 
Mark  with  the  more  consecutive  narrative  of  Matthew. 
Moreover,  it  is  plain  that  he  had  in  mind  the  lack  of 
completeness  in  Mark,  which  begins  abruptly  with 
the  preaching  of  John.  Por  he  afterwards  explains 
that  Mark  wrote  down  “  some  things  ” — whatever  he 

recollected ;  though  it  is  added  that  he  left  out  noth- 
12 


178  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FIRST  THREE  GOSPELS. 

irsg  tliat  lie  heard.  The  necessary  gaps  and  omissions 
constituted  in  part  the  want  of  order — rcZgcg — which 
he  noticed  in  Mark.1  The  second  Gospel  did  not 
seem  to  he  a  full,  systematical  digest — a  ovvra^iq — 
of  the  words  and  deeds  of  Christ,  like  Matthew,  but 
had  a  more  irregular,  fragmentary  structure.  Not 
that  Mark  neglected  arrangement  altogether  and 
simply  pasted  together  the  reports  of  Peter  in  the 
order  in  which  he  heard  them.  This  is  not  at  all 
implied;  but  only  that  he  had  not  the  means  of 
exactly  arranging  and  filling  out  his  history.  To  call 
into  existence  another  work,  different  from  our  Mark, 
on  no  other  ground  than  this  observation  of  Papias,  is 
a  folly  of  criticism. 

The  Tubingen  writers  have  set  up  the  wholly 
unsupported  assertion,  that  our  Mark  is  the  amplifica¬ 
tion  of  an  earlier  “  Gospel  of  Peter ;  ”  but,  as  might 
be  expected,  they  have  little  agreement  with  each 
other  in  the  forms  which  they  give  to  their  theory. 
Hilgenfeld  is  persuaded  that  Mark  is  the  product  of 
a  recasting,  in  the  Petrine  interest  and  that  of  the 
Roman  Church,  of  the  Gospel  of  Matthew.2 3  Marvel¬ 
lous  that  this  Petrine,  Roman  Catholic  partisan  should 

1  Meyer  is  plainly  wrong  in  making  tlie  “  some  things  k'via — 
cover  only  &  portion  of  what  Mark  set  down.  The  meaning  is  that 

only  a  part  of  the  teachings  and  works  of  Christ  find  a  place  in  his 
Gospel.  The  want  of  order,  as  we  have  said  before,  is  predicated  as 
much  of  the  record  of  the  “  things  done,”  as  of  the  u  things  said.” 

3  Hilgenfeld’s  Kan.onische  Evangelien ,  s.  148. 


MARK. 


179 


have  left  out  of  liis  work  tlie  passage :  “  Thou  art 

i 

Peter,  and  on  this  rock  I  build  my  church  !  ”  Strange 
that  he  should  have  stricken  out  the  passage  which, 
above  all  others,  was  suited  to  his  purpose !  Baur, 
seeing  that  the  supposition  of  an  earlier  Gospel  of 
Mark  is  incredible,  on  account  of  the  absence  of  all 
traces  of  such  a  work  and  all  allusions,  to  it,  has 
invented  a  new  hypothesis  which  is,  if  possible,  more 
irrational  than  Hilgenfeld’s.  Papias  has  mixed  up, 
we  are  told,  things  that  have  no  connection — the 
existence  of  the  Gospel  of  Mark,  with  which  he  was 
perhaps  not  even  acquainted,  and  the  legend  of  dis¬ 
courses  which  were  thought  to  have  been  delivered 
by  Peter  on  his  missionary  journeys.  But  of  what 
weight  is  this  naked  conjecture  in  opposition  to  the 
distinct  testimony  of  Papias?  If  a  witness  is  to  be 
set  aside  on  so  flimsy  a  pretext,  there  is  an  end  of 
historical  investigation.  Besides,  it  is  not  Papias 
alone  who  testifies  to  the  Gospel  of  Mark  and  the 
*  connection  of  Mark  with  Peter.  Xrenaeus,  Clement, 
Eusebius,  say  the  same ;  and  there  is  no  reason  to 
suppose  that  they  simply  reecho  the  statement  of 
Papias.  All  these  writers  represent  what  was  un¬ 
questionably  the  general  belief  at  the  time  when 
Papias  wrote. 

These  assaults  upon  the  integrity  of  the  Gospel  of 
Mark,  by  critics  who  do  not  stick  to  any  one  hypo¬ 
thesis  as  long  as  it  takes  the  seasons  to  revolve,  have 
not  weakened  in  the  slightest  degree  that  argument  in 


180  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FIRST  THREE  GOSPELS. 


behalf  of  the  Gospel  on  which  the  Church  has  rested 
from  the  apostolic  age  until  now.  Are  historical 
testimonies  to  be  blown  away  by  the  empty  guess  of 
a  theorist  P 


LUKE. 

The  school  of  Baur  have  been  especially  confident 
in  asserting  that  Luke’s  Gospel  was  written  to  further 
a  certain  theological  interest.  It  is  a  tendenz-scltrifl , 
they  are  sure,  which  emanates  from  the  Pauline  side, 
and  represents  the  gospel  history  in  a  way  to  favor 
the  Gentile  claims  and  privileges. 

Now,  every  historian  who  is  not  a  mere  story¬ 
teller,  writes  from  his  own  point  of  view.  Every 
historian  will  disclose  in  the  complexion  of  his  work 
his  own  character  and  situation.  Certain  aspects  of 
the  subject  which  have  for  one  writer  a  peculiar 
interest,  are  thrown  by  a  writer  of  a  different  cast 
more  into  the  background.  The  position  and  charac¬ 
ter  of  an  historian  affect  his  selection  and  disposition 
of  the  matter.  But  the  question  is  whether  he  is 
betrayed  into  inveracity  and  perversion  by  the  bent 
of  his  mind  and  his  party  connections.  It  is  clear 
that  Luke,  a  disciple  of  Paul  and  writing  for  a 
heathen  convert,  is  more  interested  in  the  intention 
of  the  author  of  the  gospel  to  provide  salvation  equally 
for  the  Gentiles.  But  is  he  thereby  led  to  indulge  in 
misstatement  and  invention?  Does  he  omit  import- 


LUKE. 


181 


ant  facts  because  they  would  clash  with  a  view  which 
he  wishes  to  make  out  ?  And  does  he  not  scruple  to 
fabricate  incidents  for  the  sake  of  helping  forward  a 
party  interest  ?  This  is  charged  by  Baur — charged, 
as  we  believe,  without  proof,  and  falsely.  There  is  no 
inconsistency  between  the  representation  of  the  life 
and  teachings  of  Christ  in  Matthew,  and  that  made 
in  Luke.  The  design  of  Christianity  to  embrace  the 
Gentiles,  even  to  bring  to  them  an  advantage  above 
the  unbelieving  nation  to  whom  the  gospel  first 
comes,  is  abundantly  attested  in  Matthew.  What  are 
the  proofs  by  which  Baur  would  sustain  his  impeach¬ 
ment  of  Luke  ?  They  are,  one  and  all,  destitute  of 
weight.  Luke  omits  to  mention  the  distinction  put 
upon  Peter  when  he  was  styled  the  Bock ;  but  so  does 
Mark.  It  is  charged  that  Luke  contrives  to  disparage 
the  twelve  disciples,  in  order  to  pave  the  way  for  an 
inference  to  the  honor  of  Paul.  This  is  pure  fancy, 
and  has  against  it  such  passages  as  Luke  xxii.  29,  30, 
where  the  Lord  declares  that  a  kingdom  is  appointed 

i 

for  this  band  of  disciples,  even  as  the  Pather  had 
appointed  for  him ;  and  that  they  should  “  sit  on 
twelve  thrones,  judging  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel.” 
ILilgenfeld  is  acute  enough  to  find  in  this  promise 
a  designed  depression  of  the  twelve,  since  they  are  to 
judge  Israel  alone !  What,  then,  is  the  purport 
of  the  same  promise  in  “  judaizing  ”  Matthew  ?  1 
That  the  kingdom  is  preached  in  Samaria,  according 


1  Matt.  xix.  25. 


182  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FIRST  THREE  GOSPELS. 

to  Luke,  is  also,  if  we  are  to  believe  Baur,  a  fiction 
designed  as  a  typical  prelude  to  Paul’s  free  offer  of 
salvation  to  the  heathen,  and  to  pacify  objectors  to  this 
last  procedure.  Especially  is  the  mission  of  the 
Seventy  (Luke  x.  10)  discredited,  and  ascribed  partly 
to  the  desire  to  diminish  the  consideration  of  the 
twelve,  and  partly  to  the  wish  to  furnish  a  justifying 
parallel  or  preparation,  in  the  manner  just  mentioned, 
for  the  Pauline  liberality  to  the  Gentiles  and  for  the 
missions  among  them.  But  in  sending  out  the 
Seventy,  Christ  did  not  organize  them  into  a  per¬ 
manent  body.  There  is  no  trace  of  such  a  body  of 
disciples  in  the  Acts,  as  there  certainly  would  be  if 
they  had  been  a  permanent  body,  or  if  the  narrative 
in  Luke  had  been  a  doctrinal  fiction.  The  Seventy 
were  provisionally  employed,  in  the  course  of  this  last 
journey  of  Jesus  to  Jerusalem,  when  He  was  desirous 
of  making  Himself  more  widely  known  to  the  people. 
The  number  was  fixed  at  seventy,  not  because  the 
Jews  reckoned  the  languages  of  the  world  at  seventy, 
which  is  Baur’s  explanation,  but  more  likely  in  allu¬ 
sion  to  the  seventy  elders  appointed  by  Moses,  just  as 
the  twelve  disciples  corresponded  with  the  number  of 
tribes.  Nor  did  the  Seventy  go  to  the  heathen.  It 
does  not  appear  that  they  went  to  the  Samaritans  even  ; 
and  Luke  himself  records  that  by  the  Samaritans 
Jesus  himself  had  been  inhospitably  received.1  It 
has  been  properly  suggested,  in  reply  to  Baur,  that 

1  Luke  ix.  51  seq. 


I 


LUKE. 


183 


were  this  incident  a  wilful  fiction,  it  would  be  so 
contrived  as  to  present  a  greater  resemblance  to  the 
later  apostolic  history,  than  the  occult,  remote,  far¬ 
fetched  analogy  which  Baur  imagines  himself  to 
discern.  So  slender  are  the  principal  grounds  on 
which  important  portions  of  the  third  Gospel  are  pro¬ 
nounced  a  fabrication!  They  illustrate  the  morbid 
suspicion  of  these  critics,  and  their  slavish  subjection 
to  a  preconceived,  indefensible  theory  concerning  the 
original  character  of  Christianity. 

One  of  the  most  important  topics  connected  with 
modern  discussions  relative  to  the  origin  of  the  third 
Gospel,  is  the  relation  of  that  Gospel  to  the  Gospel  of 
Marcion.  In  the  genial  portraiture  which  Neander 
has  drawn  of  this  noted  heresiarch,  it  appears  that  the 
love  and  compassion  of  Christ  had  struck  into  his 
soul.  Not  discerning  that  this  love  and  compassion 
presuppose  and  require  the  feelings  of  justice,  he 
conceived  that  the  representations  of  the  character  of 
God  in  the  Old  Testament  are  inconsistent  with  the 
image  he  had  formed  of  Christ.  Moreover,  the  apos¬ 
tles,  with  the  exception  of  Paul,  seemed  to  him  to  be 
entangled  in  Old  Testament  views  and  to  have 
perverted  the  pure  doctrine  of  Jesus.  On  the  con¬ 
trary,  the  expressions  in  Paul  about  the  Christian’s 
emancipation  from  the  law  and  about  free  grace,  being 
imperfectly  understood  by  Marcion,  fell  in  with  the 
current  of  his  feeling.  Hence,  though  starting  from 


184  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FIRST  THREE  GOSPELS. 

a  practical  and  not  a  speculative  point  of  view,  lie 
developed  a  gnostical  theory,  according  to  which  the 
God  of  the  Old  Testament  was  a  Demiurg,  inferior 
to  the  Father  of  Jesus.  He  shaped  his  scriptural 
canon  to  suit  his  doctrinal  belief.  The  Gospel  of 
Luke,  as  written  by  a  companion  of  Paul,  and  as 
bringing  out  the  Pauline  doctrine,  he  regarded  with 
favor ;  but,  according  to  the  unanimous  testimony  of 
the  Fathers,  he  mutilated  and  abridged  this  Gospel 
in  order  to  conform  it  to  his  own  system.  Similar 
liberties  he  took  with  the  Pauline  Epistles,  which  he 
also  received.  He  may  have  fancied  that  the  changes 
which  he  made  in  all  these  documents  were  a  restora¬ 
tion  of  them  to  their  original  form.  Yet  there  is  no 
indication  whatever  that  these  changes  were  made  on 
any  other  authority  than  his  a-jjriori  theory  of  what 
Christ  and  the  apostles  must  have  taught. 

A  native  of  Pontus  in  Asia  Minor,  Marcion  came 
to  Rome  about  the  year  140 — possibly  ten  years  later. 
Hence,  if  the  statement  of  Tertullian  and  the  rest  of 
the  Fathers  is  correct,  respecting  the  relation  of  his 
Gospel  to  that  of  Luke,  he  is  a  most  important  witness 
to  the  early  and  general  reception  of  Luke’s  Gospel  in 
its  present  form.  It  would  seem  to  be  well-nigh 
impossible  to  call  in  question  this  early  testimony.  It 
is  true  that  Marcion  did  not  succeed  in  removing  from 
Luke  all  features  not  in  keeping  with  his  system. 
But  this  is  only  to  say  that  he  did  not  do  his  work 
with  entire  thoroughness  and  consistency.  Irenaeus 


LUKE. 


185 


and  Tertullian  and  their  contemporaries,  be  it  ob¬ 
served,  lived  shortly  after  Marcion.  Irenaeus  had 
grown  to  be  a  young  man  before  Marcion  died. 
Tertullian  had  taken  great  pains  to  collect  information 
concerning  Marcion’s  career  and  system.  But,  inde¬ 
pendently  of  their  testimony  in  itself  considered,  how 
can  it  be  supposed  that  a  Gospel  which  Marcion  and 
the  Marcionites  alone  received,  was  taken  up  by 
Catholic  Christians,  and  enlarged  and  improved  for 
their  own  use  ?  What  possible  motive  could  prompt 
them  to  appropriate  to  themselves  this  heretical,  spu¬ 
rious  Gospel,  and  add  it  to  those  which  they  knew  to 
be  authentic?  How  did  the  churches  drop  out  the 
work  which  Marcion  used — supposed  to  be  the  real 
Luke — and  substitute  for  it  the  new-fangled  Gospel 
which  was  fabricated  on  the  basis  of  it  ?  How  is  it 
that  we  have  no  notice  of  this  exchange — no  traces  of 
a  previous  use  of  the  curtailed  Luke  of  Marcion,  on 
the  part  of  the  churches?  And  such  a  procedure 
would  bring  down  the  date  of  the  canonical  Gospel  to 
130  or  140! 

The  first  to  dispute  the  received  view  as  to  Mar¬ 
cion’s  Gospel,  was  the  founder  of  German  rationalism, 
Sender.  He  suggested  that  our  Luke  and  Marcion’s 
Luke  are  different  recensions,  or  editions,  of  the  same 
work.  Others  after  him  assigned  the  priority  to  the 
Luke  of  Marcion.  Opinion  swayed  from  one  side  to 
the  other  on  this  question,  until  Baur  strenuously 
contended  that  Marcion’s  Gospel  is  first  and  the 


186  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FIRST  THREE  GOSPELS. 

canonical  Luke  was  made  on  the  basis  of  it.  This 
hypothesis  he  defended  at  length  in  his  work  on  the 
Canonical  Gospels }  But  a  careful  comparison  of  the 
numerous  passages  of  Marcion’s  Luke,  which  are 
found  in  the  Bathers,  made  it  impossible  longer  to 
dispute  the  priority  of  the  canonical  Gospel.  And 
after  the  publication  of  the  work  of  Yolckmar  on  this 
subject,  Baur  himself  retracted  his  previous  hypothesis 
and  came  on  to  the  same  ground.  In  his  work  on 
Mark’s  Gospel,  he  says  :  “  It  is  no  longer  to  be  denied, 
as  I  have  become  convinced  by  a  repeated  examination, 
that  most  of  the  variations  between  Marcion’s  Gospel 
and  our  own  are,  with  a  prevailing  likelihood,  to  be 
regarded  as  arbitrary  alterations  in  the  interest  of  a 
given  system.”  The  priority  of  our  Luke  is  now  an 
established,  uncontradicted  fact.  See  how  much  this 
fact  involves  !  Marcion  took  an  accepted,  generally 
received  Gospel,  and  applied  to  it  his  pruning -knife. 
Our  Luke,  then,  was  most  certainly  an  authoritative 

in  the  second  century. 
But  a  more  valuable  deduction  may  be  made  with 
entire  confidence.  Marcion  selected  a  work  which  he 
regarded,  and  others  regarded,  as  the  composition  of  a 
disciple  of  Paul,  and  deriving  its  authority  and  value 
from  this  circumstance.  We  may  safely  infer  that  our 
Gospel  was  generally  considered  at  the  beginning  of 
the  second  century,  or  about  thirty  years  after  we  sup¬ 
pose  it  to  have  been  written,  to  be  the  work  of  an 
1  Baur’s  Kanonische  Emngelien ,  s.  393  seq.  (1847). 


document  m  the  churches  early 


LUKE. 


187 


earlier  writer,  an  associate  of  the  apostles.  As  con¬ 
cerns  the  argument  from  tradition  for  the  genuineness 
and  early  date  of  Luke,  we  could  ask  for  nothing 
more. 

Baur’s  whole  theory  concerning  Luke  was,  in 
reality,  shattered  by  the  demolition  of  the  false  and 
most  improbable  hypothesis  of  a  priority  of  Marcion’s 
Gospel.  Yet,  in  his  later  works,  he  does  not  wholly 
abandon  his  erroneous  construction.  The  canonical 
Luke,  he  still  holds,  was  originally  composed  by  a 
strictly  Pauline  and  anti-Petrine  Christian.  Various 
passages  which  are  plainly  and  palpably  irreconcilable 
with  such  a  theory,  he  declares  to  be  interpolated  by  a 
subsequent  writer  whose  position  is  “mediatory,’'  or 
half-way  between  the  two  parties,  into  which  Baur 
falsely  supposes  the  early  Church  to  have  been  split. 
Por  this  theory  of  a  later  editor,  there  is  not  an  iota  of 
historical  evidence.  It  is,  like  so  many  other  hypothe¬ 
ses,  spun  out  of  the  bowels  of  the  critic.  The  dissec¬ 
tion  of  the  Gospel,  which  is  attempted,  is  from  begin¬ 
ning  to  end  a  purely  arbitrary  proceeding,  and  has  no 
better  foundation  than  had  the  mutilation  attempted 
by  Marcion.  To  illustrate  the  groundless  and  arbi¬ 
trary  character  of  Baur’s  criticism  of  Luke,  we  bring 
forward  a  single  instance.  In  Luke  xvi.  16,  there  is 
recorded  the  saying  of  the  Saviour :  “  It  is  easier  for 
heaven  and  earth  to  pass,  than  one  tittle  of  the  law  to 
fail.”  In  place  of  “the  law” — tov  vouov — there 
was  found  in  Marcion’s  Gospel — tcov  loycov  juov — 


188  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FIRST  THREE  GOSPELS. 

“my  words.”  The  existence  of  this  declaration  in 
Luke  concerning  the  perpetuity  of  the  law,  is  at  war 
with  Baur’s  idea  of  the  anti- Jewish  character  of  the 
Gospel.  It  is  one  of  the  clearest  proofs  of  the  un¬ 
founded  nature  of  his  theory.  Hence,  he  puts  forward 
the  assertion  that  Marcion  has  the  true  reading.  Lor 
the  reading  of  Marcion  there  is  no  manuscript  support 
whatever.  It  comports,  moreover,  with  the  character 
of  all  the  rest  of  his  alterations.  He  aims  to  erase 
whatever  gives  a  sanction  to  the  Old  Testament  law. 
Yet  we  are  expected  to  accept  the  wholly  unsupported 
and  groundless  doctrine  of  that  oracular  personage 
stvled  Die  Kritik ,  who  reverses  his  own  decision  with 
every  new  moon  ! 

Much  of  the  mistaken  and  mischievous  speculation 
adverse  to  the  genuineness  of  the  third  Gospel,  has 
sprung  from  S chleierm acher ’ s  hypothesis  of  the  com¬ 
posite  character  of  this  Gospel  and  of  the  Acts.  He 
proposed  the  theory  that  the  Gospel  of  Luke  is  a  series 
of  earlier  documents  linked  together,  the  task  of  Luke 
being  merely  that  of  a  compiler.  This  view  was 
ingeniously  advocated.  A  similar  hypothesis  was  held 
concerning  the  Acts,  the  second  work  of  the  same 
author.  But  this  hypothesis,  both  in  respect  to  the 
Gospel  and  the  Acts,  has  been  proved  to  be  un¬ 
founded.  Whatever  written  materials  were  in  the 
hands  of  Luke,  neither  of  his  works  is  a  mere  com¬ 
pilation.  Each  of  them  has  a  coherent  outline,  and  is 
pervaded  by  qualities  of  style  peculiar  to  the  evange- 


LUKE. 


189 


list.  One  of  the  ablest  refutations  of  the  Schleier- 
macherian  theory  is  contained  in  the  work  of  Leke- 
busch  upon  the  Acts.  The  prologue  of  Luke’s 
Gospel  evinces  the  error  of  that  theory.  Luke  avows 
his  intention  to  prepare  an  orderly,  a  systematic  and 
connected,  narrative  of  the  life  and  ministry  of  Jesus. 
And  the  impression  made  by  the  prologue  that  he 
designs  to  fuse  his  materials  into  a  regular  composi¬ 
tion,  is  sustained  by  an  inspection  of  the  contents  of 
the  work. 

This  prologue  of  Luke’s  Gospel  is  chiefly  valuable 
as  a  testimony  to  its  genuineness  and  credibility.  As 
such,  it  well  deserves  examination.  Many  before  him 
had  written  accounts,  more  or  less  full,  of  the  life  and 
ministry  of  Jesus.  He  has  carefully  followed  down 
the  course  of  the  Saviour’s  history  from  the  beginning 
— for  this  is  the  meaning  of  the  passage  rendered : 
“  having  had  perfect  understanding  of  all  things  from 
the  very  first.”  But  how  did  he,  and  “  the  many  ”  to 
whom  he  refers,  ascertain  the  facts  “  most  surely 
believed  among  us  ?  ”  He  answers  that  “  they 
delivered  them  unto  us — TiaQtdoGav  rj/Luv — which 
from  the  beginning  ”  of  the  Saviour’s  career  “  were 
eyewitnesses  and  ministers  of  the  word.”  Two  things 
are  here  affirmed:  first,  that  Luke’s  knowledge  came 
from  the  apostles  and  other  immediate  disciples  of 
Christ;  and,  secondly,  that  it  came  to  him  directly 
from  them,  without  the  intervention  of  third  persons. 


190  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FIRST  THREE  GOSPELS. 

This  last  is  implied  in  the  phrase  “  delivered  to  us  ” 
— naqthooav  fjfiiLv — as  may  be  seen  by  an  exami¬ 
nation  of  other  passages  where  the  same  phrase 
occurs  ;  as,  for  example,  1  Cor.  xi.  23.  The  inform¬ 
ants  of  Luke  were  eyewitnesses  of  the  history  which 
he  undertakes  to  record.  He  was  contemporary  writh 
them.  The  early  date  of  his  work  is  verified  by  his 
own  distinct  statement. 

THE  RELATION  OF  THE  APOCRYPHAL  TO  THE  CANONI¬ 
CAL  GOSPELS. 

The  fact  of  the  existence  of  apocryphal  Gospels  has 
given  occasion,  among  those  who  have  not  studied  the 
subject,  to  erroneous  impressions.  It  has  been  sup¬ 
posed  by  some  that  a  considerable  number  of  Gospels, 
besides  the  four  of  the  canon,  were  in  the  hands  of 
the  early  Church,  and  that,  for  reasons  which  may  not 
have  been  fully  sufficient,  these  last  were  selected,  and 
clothed  with  authority.  This  belief,  or  conjecture,  is 
unfounded,  as  we  shall  soon  point  out.  And  a  careful 
attention  to  the  subject  of  the  apocryphal  Gospels  has 
the  effect  to  set  forth  in  a  clearer  light  the  antiquity 
and  authority  of  the  received  Gospels.  A  few  remarks 
will  bring  before  the  reader  the  more  important  con¬ 
siderations.1 

1  The  old  and  standard  work  on  the  subject  of  the  apocryphal 
literature  is  that  of  Fabricius.  “  A  New  and  Full  Method  of  Settling 
the  Canonical  Authority  of  the  New  Testament,  etc.,”  by  Rev.  J. 
Jones  (Oxford,  1798),  is  Fabricius  with  English  translations.  The 


LUKE. 


191 


1.  None  of  the  works  now  extant  under  the  name 
of  apocryphal  Gospels,  have  any  claim  to  be  consid¬ 
ered  authentic  histories  of  Christ,  or  to  be  regarded, 
in  the  remotest  degree,  as  rivals  or  competitors  of  the 
canonical  Gospels. 

It  is  the  fashion  of  writers  like  Strauss  to  quote 
from  these  apocryphal  Gospels  as  well  as  from  the 
Gospels  of  the  canon,  for  the  sake  of  creating  an  im¬ 
pression  that  both  belong  to  the  same  category,  which 
no  person  pretending  to  be  a  scholar  would  venture  to 
assert.  The  apocryphal  Gospels  are  at  a  world-wide 
remove  from  the  canonical  Gospels,  in  the  character 
of  their  contents.  They  relate  almost  exclusively  to 
the  nativity  and  infancy  of  Jesus  and  the  glories  of 
his  mother,  or  to  circumstances  attending  and  follow¬ 
ing  his  death.  They  are  chiefly  made  up  of  silly 
tales,  which  are  too  plainly  fabulous  to  merit  any 
attention.  Nor  have  they  any  title  to  attention  on 

remarks  and  deductions  of  Jones  are  sometimes  good,  but  often  ill- 
judged.  Thilo  began  to  edit  the  apocryphal  Gospels  in  a  most 
scholarly  manner,  but  only  published  a  first  volume.  Tischendorf, 
besides  his  critical  edition  of  the  Emngelia  Apocrypha  (1853),  has 
discussed  the  bearing  of  the  apocryphal  Gospels  upon  the  question 
of  the  genuineness  and  credibility  of  the  Gospels  of  the  canon,  in  his 
prize  essay  dc  Evangeliorum  apoc.  origine  et  usu  (1851),  and  in 
his  recent  dissertation,  Warm  wurden  die  Evangelien  verfasst 
(1865).  Horton’s  chapter  ( Genuineness  of  the  Gospels ,  Vol.  iii.  ch. 
xii.)  is  lucid  and  instructive.  He  goes  farther  than  most  scholars 
would  approve,  in.  discrediting  the  existence  of  apocryphal  books 
which  ecclesiastical  writers  mention  by  their  titles.  But  his  skep¬ 
ticism  in  this  particular  is  a  healthy  antidote  to  extravagances  in  the 
opposite  direction. 


192  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FIRST  THREE  GOSPELS. 

the  score  of  age.  All  of  them  are  demonstrably  later 
than  our  Gospels.  Most  of  them  are  even  centuries 
later.  It  is  supposed  by  Tischendorf  that  three  of 
these  are  alluded  to  by  early  Fathers,  but  of  this  we 
cannot  be  certain.  Justin  Martyr  twice  mentions  the 
Acts  [a xt  a)  of  Pilate,  as  a  document  where  could 
be  found  an  attestation  of  the  Saviour’s  history. 
Tertullian  has  a  similar  reference.  A  book  called  Gesta 
Pilciti ,  or  Acts  of  Pilate,  forms  a  part  of  the  so-called 
Gospel  of  Nicodemus.  But  the  Acts  of  a  Roman 
governor — such  a  work  as  Justin  designates — was  his 
official  Report  to  the  Emperor,  which  was  deposited 
in  the  archives  at  Rome.  Whether  in  the  time  of 
Justin  there  was  any  published  narrative  of  that  sort, 
purporting  to  be  Pilate’s  report  of  the  judicial  pro¬ 
ceeding  in  the  case  of  Jesus,  we  are  unable  to  say.1 
But  the  Gesta  Pilati  which  we  possess  is  a  narrative 
of  Christ’s  life  on  the  basis  of  our  Gospels,  which  it  is 
pretended  that  Nicodemus  wrote  and  the  Emperor 
Theodosius  (which  Emperor  of  that  name,  we  are  not 
told)  found  among  the  public  records  in  the  hall 
of  Pontius  Pilate,  at  Jerusalem.  This  Gospel  of 
Nicodemus  is  unquestionably  a  composite  work,  and 
the  part  embraced  in  the  Acta  Pilati  may  be,  as 
Tischendorf  thinks,  as  old  as  Justin.  Yet  there  has 

1  Perhaps  Justin  refers  to  no  writing  which  he  had  seen,  but  to 
a  public  document  which  he  supposes  to  exist.  In  the  same  way 
(Apol.,  I.  35)  he  says:  “As  you  may  learn  from  the  lists  of  the 
taxing,  which  were  made  in  the  time  of  Cyrenius,  the  first  governor 
of  yours  in  Judea.” 


LUKE. 


193 


been  confessedly  great  license  in  altering  the  text ;  and 
after  all,  the  opinion  of  Norton  that  this  production 
is  of  a  later  date,  is  not  conclusively  disproved.  Ori¬ 
gen,  in  the  first  half  of  the  third  century,  once  refers 
to  a  book  of  James,  as  containing  the  statement  that 
the  brothers  of  Jesus  were  children  of  Joseph  by  a 
former  marriage ;  and  the  apocryphal  Protevangelion 
of  James  contains  a  similar  statement.  But  there  is 
no  other  allusion  to  such  a  work  until  near  the  end 
of  the  fourth  century.  The  work  now  extant  is  a  silly 
legend  concerning  the  birth  of  Mary  and  the  birth  of 
Jesus,  and  is  thought  by  Norton  to  be  of  much  later 
date  than  the  likewise  unimportant  book  which  Origen 
casually  notices,  and  to  which  he  attributes  no  au¬ 
thority.  Tischendorf,  however,  is  convinced  that  some 
traces  of  an  acquaintance  with  the  Protevangelion  are 
found  in  Justin  and  in  Clement  of  Alexandria,  and 
that  the  manuscripts  now  extant  substantially  corres¬ 
pond  to  the  work  which  was  in  their  hands.  But  the 
first  of  these  points  must  still  be  considered  doubtful* 
and  the  conclusion  of  Tischendorf  as  to  the  antiquity 
of  the  work  is  therefore  equally  uncertain.  Origen, 
also,  alludes  to  a  spurious  Gospel  of  Thomas.  A 
passage  in  Irenaeus  is  thought  to  indicate  that  it  was 
in  use  among  the  heretical  Marcosii,  and  Hippolytus 
states  that  a  Gospel  of  Thomas  was  received  by  the 
Naaseni.1  An  apocryphal  work  professing  to  emanate 

1  Iren.  Adv.  Ilaer .,  Lib.  i.  c.  20  ;  Hippol.  (Duncber  and  Sclmeid. 
Ed.)  pp.  140,  142. 

13 


194  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FIRST  THREE  GOSPELS. 

from  Thomas,  is  now  extant  (though  in  very  divergent 
forms),  of  which  the  work  alluded  to  by  Origen  may 
have  served  as  the  basis.  It  is  composed  of  fabulous 
tales  of  the  boyhood  of  Jesus.  But  Norton  even 
doubts  whether  the  Gospel  of  Thomas,  which  is 
mentioned  by  Origen,  was  a  narrative.  He  thinks 
that,  like  other  spurious  works  bearing  the  name 
of  Gospel,  it  may  have  been  a  doctrinal  homily. 

Tischendorf  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  Ada  and 
the  Prof  evangelical  were  composed  somewhere  in  the 
first  decades  of  the  second  century.  Trom  the  evident 
dependence  of  these  works  on  the  Gospels  of  the 
canon,  he  infers  that  the  latter  were  in  general  use 
at  an  earlier  day.  This  conclusion  stands  or  falls, 
according  to  the  judgment  which  is  formed  as  to  the 
correctness  of  the  date  assigned  to  the  Acta  and 
the  Protevangelion }  At  all  events,  these  and  the 
other  apocryphal  Gospels  now  extant  show  what 
sort  of  works  would  have  been  produced,  had  the 
canonical  writers  followed  their  own  fancv  and  inven- 

t / 

tion.  In  this  aspect,  the  apocryphal  Gospels  afford 
an  impressive  confirmation  of  the  verity  of  the  canon¬ 
ical  histories.  The  sobriety  and  simplicity  of  the 
latter,  together  with  their  distinct  statement  that  no 
miracles  were  performed  by  Jesus  prior  to  his  baptism, 
are  in  wonderful  contrast  with  the  fanciful  and  fan- 

1  Tischendorf  supposes  that  the  Descensus  Ghristi  ad  inferos 
in  the  Evangeleum  Nicodemi  is  also  as  old  as  the  middle  of  the 
second  century. 


THE  APOCRYPHAL  GOSPELS. 


195 


tastic  complexion  of  tlie  spurious  Gospels.  The 
clumsiness  of  the  counterfeit  sets  off  the  perfection 
of  the  original. 

O 

2.  The  apocryphal  Gospels  which  are  mentioned. 

* 

by  the  early  Fathers,  and  most  if  not  ail  of  which 
have  perished,  had  only  a  local  circulation,  had  no 
authority  save  with  minor  heretical  parties,  and  had 
no  effect  on  that  generally  prevailing  conception  of  the 
life  and  teaching  of  Christ,  which  was  founded  ex¬ 
clusively  on  the  four  authentic  and  canonical  narra¬ 
tives  unanimously  received  by  the  early  Church. 

We  must  explain  that  we  do  not  include  in  this 
statement  the  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews  and  Marcion’s 
Gospel,  for  the  reason  that  both  of  these  works  were 
produced  by  the  alteration  of  canonical  Gospels.  The 
Gospel  of  the  Hebrews  existed  in  many  varying  forms, 
and  under  different  titles.  The  Gospel  of  the  Twelve 
Apostles, Tor  example,  and  other  books  the  titles  of 
which  have  come  down  to  us,  were  different  editions 
of  the  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews.  This  work,  as  we 
have  said,  was  our  Matthew  altered.1  The  Gospel 

1  That  tlie  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews  was  never  put  by  the  church 
and  church  writers  on  a  level  with  the  canonical  Gospels,  has  been 
fully  proved.  See,  for  example,  the  Article  of  Franck  {Stud.  u.  Krit ., 
1848,  2),  to  which  we  have  before  referred.  As  to  the  use  of  it  by 
Ilegesippus,  Eusebius  merely  says  that  he  brought  forward  some 
things  from  the  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews,  as  he  did  from  unwritten 
Hebrew  traditions.  Origen  and  Jerome  were  too  intelligent  to  rank 
it  with  the  canonical  Gospels.  Eusebius  places  it  among  the 
Antilegomena,  it  being  the  Gospel  used  by  the  Hebrew  Christians. 
Euseb.,  III.  25. 


196  ORIGIN  OE  THE  FIRST  THREE  GOSPELS. 

0 

of  Marcion  was  our  Luke  abridged  and  otherwise 
changed. 

The  truth  which  we  wish  to  convey  is,  that  there 
to  ere  no  Gospel  histories  in  the  second  century  which 
were  contending  for  acceptance  by  the  side  of  the 
Lour ;  none  which  had  come  into  general  use  and 
were  discarded;  none  having  any  claims  to  be  au¬ 
thentic,  which  required  to  be  seriously  weighed.  As 
far  as  we  can  ascertain,  there  were  no  other  Gospels 
which  had  a  consideration  sufficient  to  render  them 
candidates  for  public  favor  in  the  Church.  It  should 
be  remarked  that  the  first  attempts  at  evangelical 
writing  which  Luke  mentions  in  his  preface,  were 
early  supplanted  by  the  canonical  histories,  so  that 
none  of  the  former,  as  far  as  we  can  discover,  were 
known  to  the  ecclesiastical  writers  of  the  second 
century. 

The  Gnostics  were  the  falsifiers  and  fabricators  of 
Scripture,  according  to  the  statement  of  the  Lathers. 
In  the  controversy  of  Irenaeus  and  Tertullian  with  the 
Gnostics,  both  sides  take  for  granted  a  life  and 
teaching  of  Christ,  which,  with  wholly  insignificant 
exceptions,  is  identical  with  the  representation  of  our 
canonical  Gospels.  He  is  assumed  to  have  done  and 
said  just  what  they  record.  The  leading  sects  of 
the  Gnostics  were  therefore  governed  in  their  con¬ 
ception  of  the  career  and  ministry  of  Christ,  by  the 
authority  and  the  representations  of  the  canonical 
histories. 


THE  APOCRYPHAL  GOSPELS. 


197 


Tertullian,  who  has  so  much  to  say  of  the  falsifi¬ 
cation  of  Luke  by  Marcion  and  of  his  rejection  of  the 
rest  of  the  Gospels  on  dogmatic  grounds,  does  not 
mention  any  apocryphal  Gospels  as  in  use  among  the 
Valentinians,  the  principal  gnostical  sect,  and  the 
rest  of  his  opponents.  In  one  place  only,  Irenaeus 
speaks  of  a  gospel  as  used  by  the  Valentinians,  bear¬ 
ing  the  title  of  the  True  Gospel  or  the  Gospel  of  Truth. 
We  know  not  whether  this  was  narrative  or  homily. 
We  know  not  whether  Irenaeus  had  ever  seen  the 
work.  We  know  not  whether  it  really  existed,  or 
whether  Irenaeus  did  not  mistake  the  claim  on  their 
part  to  be  possessed  of  the  true  Gospel,  or  the  true 
interpretation  of  the  Gospel,  for  an  allusion  to  a  book. 
But  of  this  wTe  are  certain,  that  he,  and,  as  far  as  we 
know,  they,  brought  forward  no  passage  from  it.  The 
Gospel  of  Basilides  is  another  work  which,  if  indeed 
such  a  work  existed,  was  probably  not  a  narrative, 
[t  was  little  known ;  and  not  a  sentence  from  it  is 
quoted  by  the  ancient  writers.  Origen  says  that 
Basilides  wrote  a  Gospel  and  prefixed  his  own  name 
to  it ;  a  statement  which  is  repeated  by  Ambrose  and 
Jerome.  But  the  refutations  of  Basilides  take  notice 
of  nothing  drawn  from  such  a  work.  He  is  said  by 
Eusebius  (quoting  from  Agrippa  Castor)  to  have 
written  a  work  in  twenty-four  books  “  upon  the  Gos¬ 
pel  ” — apparently  an  exegetical  work  ;  and  this  fact 
may  not  improbably  have  given  rise  to  the  supposi¬ 
tion  that  he  had  fabricated  a  new  Gospel. 


198  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FIRST  THREE  GOSPELS. 

In  order  to  show  how  obscure,  comparatively, 
these  apocryphal  Gospels  were,  and  how  far  the 
existence  of  them  is  from  weakening,  in  the  least 
degree,  the  evidence  for  the  antiquity  and  verity  of 
the  canonical  four,  we  will  state  all  that  is  known 
concerning  the  two  most  prominent  of  these  fictions 
— the  Gospel  of  Peter  and  the  Gospel  of  the  Egyp¬ 
tians. 

The  Gospel  of  Peter  has  been  made  to  figure 
conspicuously  in  the  manifold  hypotheses  of  the  skepti¬ 
cal  school  of  critics.  It  is  instructive  to  see  just  how 
much  is  known  concerning  this  work,  which,  from  the 
ado  made  about  it  by  the  critics  in  question,  one 
would  infer  to  be  a  document  of  great  notoriety  and 
importance  in  the  early  Church.  It  has  been  said  that 
Justin  Martyr,  in  a  passage  of  his  Dialogue  with 
Trypho,  makes  reference  to  a  Gospel  of  Peter ;  but 
this  is  a  mistake.1  The  first  notice  of  the  Gospel  of 
Peter  is  from  Serapion,  near  the  end  of  the  second 
century.  Serapion,  bishop  of  Antioch,  had,  as  we 
learn  from  Eusebius,  found  that  some  disturbance 

1  The  passage  is  in  Tryph .,  c.  106.  See  Otto’s  excellent  note, 
(Otto’s  Ed.  of  Justin,  Yol.  II.  p.  361).  There  may  be  an  omission 
of  cittootoKwv  before  afrdf,  as  Otto  supposes ;  or  the  civtov  may 
refer  to  Christ ;  or,  again,  the  allusion  may  be  to  Mark,  -which  was 
known  as  Peter's  Gospel.  We  think  that  the  context  (see  c.  105) 
renders  it  in  the  highest  degree  probable  (as  Otto  thinks)  that 
Justin,  according  to  his  usual  custom,  refers  in  this  place  to  the 
anoyvrujLovevyLaTa  collectively  and  in  the  plural — that  is,  to  our  four 
Gospels. 


THE  APOCRYPHAL  GOSPELS. 


199 


had  been  created  in  the  church  at  Rhosse,  a  town  in 
Cilicia,  by  a  so-called  Gospel  of  Peter  which  was  in 
the  hands  of  some  of  the  church -members.  At  first, 
thinking  that  the  book  was  harmless,  he  deemed  the 
affair  undeserving  of  notice.  But  afterwards  he  pro¬ 
cured  a  copy  of  the  book  from  some  of  the  Docetae, 
who  used  it,  and  found  it  to  contain  objectionable 
matter.  Origen  has  a  single  allusion  to  this  Gospel, 
as  containing,  like  the  book  of  James,  the  statement 
that  the  brothers  of  Jesus  were  children  of  Joseph 
by  a  former  marriage.  It  is  afterwards  barely  men¬ 
tioned,  as  an  apocryphal  book,  by  Jerome.  This  is 
all  that  we  know  of  the  apocryphal  Gospel  of  Peter ! 
It  is  not  clear  that  Origen  had  ever  seen  it.  The 
bishop  of  what  wras  then  the  principal  See  in  the  East 
had  never  heard  of  the  book  until  he  met  with  it  at 
Rhosse;  and  when  he  wished  to  examine  it,  he  was 
obliged  to  borrow  a  copy  of  some  heretical  Docetae 
by  whom  it  was  used  !  Moreover,  there  is  nothing 
to  show  that  it  was  a  narrative.  The  way  in  which 
Serapion  speaks  of  it  would  rather  suggest  the  infer¬ 
ence  that  its  contents  were  of  a  doctrinal  nature. 
Eusebius  reckons  it  among  the  evidently  spurious 
works  “  which  were  never  esteemed  valuable  enough 
to  be  cited  by  any  ecclesiastical  writer.” 1 

The  Gospel  of  the  Egyptians  is  first  mentioned 
by  Clement  of  Alexandria  near  the  end  of  the  second 
century.  He  quotes  from  it  a  fabulous  conversation 


1  Euseb.,  III.  25. 


200 


ORIGIN  OF  THE  FIRST  THREE  GOSPELS. 


of  Jesus  with  Salome.  He  expressly  characterizes 
the  book  as  apocryphal.  A  passage  similar  to  that 
quoted  by  Clement  of  Alexandria  is  found  in  the 
spurious  fragment  entitled  the  Second  Epistle  of 
Clement  (of  Rome)  to  the  Corinthians,  which  was 
not  written  earlier  than  the  time  of  Clement  of 
Alexandria;  and  it  is  possible  that  the  forger  of  the 
last  work  was  acquainted  with  this  fictitious  Gospel. 
It  is  enumerated  by  Origen  and  Jerome  among  the 
titles  of  apocryphal  Gospels,  which  they  furnish. 
Epiphanius  says  that  the  Sabellians  made  use  of  it ; 
but  his  statement  needs  confirmation.  So  much, 
and  so  much  only,  is  known  of  the  Gospel  of  the 
Egyptians.  Some  have  considered  it  one  form  of  the 
Gospel  of  the  Hebrews.  Others,  including  Norton, 
have  held  it  to  be,  not  a  narrative,  but  a  doctrinal 
work.  It  was  written  in  an  obscure  and  mystical 
vein,  and  probably  presented  the  ascetic  notions  of 
Egyptian  gnostical  sectaries,  among  whom  it  origi¬ 
nated.  It  must  have  had  a  limited  circulation.  No 
Christian  writer  has  ever  attributed  to  it  any  historical 
authority. 

We  might  proceed  to  notice  other  spurious  gos¬ 
pels,  or  books  called  by  the  name  of  gospels,  which 
are  the  subject  of  casual  allusion  in  ecclesiastical 
writers  of  the  first  centuries.  But  we  have  said 
enough  to  give  our  readers  a  fair  impression  of  their 
insignificant  importance.  Reminding  the  reader  of 
what  we  have  said  of  the  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews, 


THE  APOCRYPHAL  GOSPELS. 


201 


which  was  framed  on  the  basis  of  our  Matthew,  we 
may  distinctly  affirm,  not  only  that  the  four  Gospels 
of  the  canon  were  universally  accepted  by  the  Chris¬ 
tians  of  the  second  century,  but  also  that  no  other 
gospel  narratives  can  properly  be  said  to  have  divided 
their  honors  with  them.  It  may  be  affirmed,  with 
hardly  any  qualification,  that  they  stood  without 
competitors.  The  spurious  gospels  secured  little  or 
no  recognition  outside  of  heretical  parties  or  coteries 
from  which  they  emanated.  On  the  contrary,  if  not 
wholly  unknown,  they  were  rejected  by  the  church 
teachers  everywhere,  and  by  the  great  body  of  Chris¬ 
tian  people.1 

It  has  been  already  remarked  that  the  principal 
anti-gnostical  writers  of  the  second  century,  and  their 
adversaries,  alike  proceed  on  a  conception  of  the  life 
and  ministry  of  Jesus,  which  is  identical  with  that 
of  the  canonical  Gospels.  That  is  to  say,  both  parties 
assume  that  the  history  of  Christ  which  we  find  in 
our  Gospels,  is  alone  authentic.  A  like  confirmation 
of  the  authority  of  the  canonical  Gospels  is  ob¬ 
tained  from  Justin  Martyr.  They  wTere  undeniably 
the  Gospels  to  which  he  refers  as  being  authoritative — 
the  waitings  of  the  Apostles  and  their  Companions. 

1  For  an  enumeration  of  these  apocryphal  writings,  see  De 
Wette’s  Einl.  in  d.  AT.  Testament ,  §  73  a;  also  Hofmann’s  Art. — 
Pseudepigraphen,  etc. — in  Herzog’s  Real-Encyc.  This  last  Article, 
however,  refers  to  the  real  and  supposed  allusions  in  the  ecclesiastical 
writers  to  the  uncanonical  gospels ;  and  the  references  require  much 
sifting. 


202 


ORIGIN  OF  THE  FIRST  THREE  GOSPELS. 


But,  apart  from  tliis,  in  tlie  multitude  of  Justin’s 
allusions  to  the  life  and  teachings  of  Christ,  there  are 
only  six  which  cannot  be  at  once  traced  to  the  Gospels 
of  the  canon.  Among  these  there  is  only  one,  or  at 
most  two,  sayings  of  Christ.  Both  of  these  are  found, 
also,  in  Clement  of  Alexandria,  who  regards  the  four 
Gospels  alone  as  authoritative.  The  other  four  cases 
of  deviation  from  our  Gospels  in  Justin,  are  of  trivial 
consequence — slight  details  added  to  the  canonical 
narrative.  With  these  unimportant  exceptions,  the 
whole  representation  of  the  history  of  Jesus  in  this 
Bather,  coincides  with  that  of  the  accepted  evange¬ 
lists.1  Now  Justin  lived  through  the  half  century 
that  followed  the  death  of  John.  He  had  travelled 
extensively.  He  was  held  in  honor  by  his  contem¬ 
poraries  and  successors.  He  gives  proof,  therefore, 
that  the  prevailing  conception  of  the  life  and  teachings 
of  Christ  in  his  time,  was  identical  with  that  of  the 
canonical  historians,  and  was  derived  from  them. 
There  was  only  one  tradition  in  the  Church  from  the 
beginning. 

We  subjoin  brief  remarks  on  the  probable  mode 
in  which  the  earliest  records  of  the  life  of  Jesus 
originated.  Jesus  himself  wrote  nothing.  He  acted 
with  quickening  and  renovating  power  upon  the 
world’s  life.  But  for  Him  to  become  an  author  would 


1  Semisch,  Denfcwurdig'keiten  des  Justin ,  s.  344.  Tlie  statement 
of  Semisch  we  have  verified  by  a  careful  and  repeated  perusal  of 
Justin’s  writings. 


ORIGIN  OE  THE  GOSPEL  RECORDS. 


203 


violate  a  subtle  feeling  of  propriety  of  which  all  of  us 
are  sensible.  At  first,  the  fresh  recollections  of  the 
men  and  women  who  had  known  him,  especially  of 
the  disciples  who  had  composed,  as  it  were,  his  family, 
were  the  unwritten  book  which  all,  who  desired, 
could  consult.  But  in  that  age,  and  when  the 
gospel  soon  found  numerous  adherents  among 
Greeks,  both  foreign  Jews  and  heathen,  it  was 
impossible  that  the  teachings  of  Christ  and  the  events 
of  his  life  should  long  remain  unrecorded.  At  the 
outset,  it  is  probable  that  isolated  memoranda  were 
made  of  particular  events  or  discourses.  These 
rudimental  records  first  came  into  being  in  Galilee 
and  about  Capernaum.  In  this  way,  a  cluster  of 
traditions  would  easily  come  to  exist.  Then,  and 
before  long,  followed  the  combination  of  them,  and 
the  earliest  efforts  at  framing  a  connected  history. 
Such  were  the  essays  which  Luke  notices  in  his 
prologue.  At  length,  within  thirty  or  forty  years  of 
the  death  of  Christ,  there  were  efforts  at  more  regular 
composition,  of  which  the  works  of  Luke  are  the 
maturest  specimen.  The  first  three  Gospels  present 
indubitable  traces  of  such  an  origin  as  we  have  indi¬ 
cated.  We  are  not  to  look  for  chronological  precision 
in  narratives  thus  constructed.  We  are  not  to  look  for 
light  on  all  parts  and  points  of  the  Saviour’s  earthly 
life.  The  Gospel  of  John,  an  original  composition, 
emanating  from  the  mind  and  heart  of  the  loved 
disciple,  is  the  document  to  be  first  consnlted  in  the 


204  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FIRST  THREE  GOSPELS. 

scientific  construction  of  the  Saviour’s  history.  The 
four  together  enable  us  to  gain  a  knowledge  of  Jesus, 
not  so  full  as  we  crave,  yet  sufficient  for  every  practi¬ 
cal  need. 


/ 


ESSAY  IY. 

BAUR  OK  PARTIES  IK  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH  AKD 
THE  CHARACTER  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  ACTS.1 

The  great  question  which  the  Church  in  the 

apostolic  age  was  required  to  consider  and  determine, 

was  the  relation  of  Christianity  to  the  ritual  law  of  the 

Old  Testament.  Was  that  law  still  binding?  Or 

rather — for  in  this  form,  as  was  natural,  the  question 

first  came  up— was  that  law  binding  on  the  Gentile 
/ 

believers  ?  In  short,  could  a  man  be  a  Christian  with¬ 
out  first  becoming  a  Jew  ?  It  cannot  be  denied  that 
the  full  extent  of  the  commotion  which  this  question 
stirred  up,  is  better  understood  in  the  light  of  recent 
discussions  than  was  the  case  formerly.  Discounting 
very  much,  as  we  shall,  from  the  extravagant  repre¬ 
sentation  of  the  Tubingen  critical  school,  we  still  feel 
that  the  sound  of  this  great  conflict  reverberates 
through  no  inconsiderable  portion  of  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  Scriptures.  The  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  is  a 

1  Das  Christenthum  u.  die  Ghristliche  Kir  die  der  drei  ersten 
Yahrhunderte ,  von  Dr.  Ferdinand  Christian  Baur.  Tubingen,  1853. 
(Author’s  last  Ed.,  1860.) 

Die  Composition  u.  Entstehung  der  Apostelgeschidite ,  von  Eduard 
Lekebusch.  Gotha,  1854. 


206 


PARTIES  IN  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH. 


fervid  argument  on  this  one  theme.  The  Epistle  to 
the  Romans,  though  not  devoted — the  opinion  of  Baur 
to  the  contrary  notwithstanding — to  this  distinctive 
subject,  gives  to  the  matter  of  the  relation  of  the  Jew 
to  the  Gentile,  a  prominent  place.  The  two  Epistles 
to  the  Corinthians  bear  witness  to  the  dissension  which 
the  same  question  had  provoked.  The  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  is  an  argument  designed  to  reconcile  the 
Jewish  believer  to  the  abrogation  of  the  old  ordinances, 
and  to  keep  him  from  lapsing,  out  of  love  to  them, 
from  the  faith  in  Christ.  The  book  of  Acts,  and  most 
of  the  other  monuments  of  the  apostolic  age,  contain 
more  or  less  of  allusion  to  the  grand  question  we  have 
described. 

Eor  it  was  a  grand  question.  It  was  not  simply 
the  question — which  of  itself  to  a  Jew  could  not  fail 
to  have  the  deepest  interest — of  the  transitory  or  per¬ 
petual  validity  of  the  Mosaic  laws  and  institutions. 
But  it  was,  also,  the  question  whether  Christianity  was, 
in  its  real  nature,  a  spiritual,  and  so  a  universal,  religion, 
or  only  an  improved  sect  or  phase  of  Judaism.  In  this 
transitional  era,  when  the  kingdom  of  God  was  break¬ 
ing  through  and  casting  off  its  rudimental  and  provis¬ 
ional  form,  and  assuming  the  permanent  features  of  a 
religion  of  the  spirit  and  a  religion  for  mankind — in 
that  crisis  of  history,  it  was  inevitable  that  such  com¬ 
motion  and  controversy  should  arise.  It  was  one 
illustration  of  the  truth  that  the  Son  of  Man  did  not 
come  to  bring  peace,  but  a  sword.  As  new  chemical 


baur’s  theory.  207 

changes  and  combinations  are  attended  with  heat  and 
combustion,  so  is  it  with  every  such  revolution  and 
new  beginning  in  the  course  of  history.  And  we  may 
add  that  even  to  the  present  day,  the  Protestant  defini¬ 
tions  of  the  essential  nature  of  the  gospel  and  of  the 
method  of  salvation,  are  sought  especially  in  those  fer¬ 
vent  declarations  against  bondage  to  rites  and  cere¬ 
monies,  and  in  favor  of  the  sufficiency  of  Christ,  which 
were  elicited  from  the  Apostle  Paul  in  the  progress  of 
this  momentous  controversv. 

A / 

The  history  of  this  controversy,  and  of  the  ques¬ 
tion  and  parties  involved  in  it,  has  lately  acquired  a 
new  importance,  from  the  place  which  it  is  made  to  fill 
in  the  historical  theory  of  Baur  and  his  school.  Strauss, 
in  his  Life  of  Christ,  had  said  little  of  the  book  of 
Acts,  and  that  little  of  not  much  weight.  This  book 
remained  a  bulwark  of  faith  for  any  who  were  disturbed 
by  the  skeptical  criticism  to  which  the  evangelical 
histories  had  been  subjected.  Here,  at  least,  was  the 
testimony  of  a  contemporary  of  the  apostles,  and  a 
companion  of  one  of  them,  which  established  the  fact 
of  a  miraculous  dispensation,  and  afforded  proof  of 
the  prior  miracles  of  the  gospel.  But  things  could 
not  be  left  by  the  Tubingen  critics  in  this  unsatisfac¬ 
tory  state.  The  book  of  Acts  was  next  made  the 
object  of  attack ;  and,  what  we  have  now  specially  to 
observe,  this  attack  was  a  part  of  a  systematic  theory, 
by  which  the  origin  of  catholic  Christianity,  or  of 
Christianity  in  the  form  we  have  it,  and  of  the  larger 


208 


PARTIES  IN  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH 


part  of  the  canonical  writings  of  the  New  Testament, 
is  explained  in  a  naturalistic  way,  through  a  peculiar 
view  of  the  character  of  the  conflict  to  which  we  have 
adverted,  and  of  the  consequences  to  which  it  led. 
This  attempted  reconstruction  of  the  history  of  the 
apostolic  age,  on  account  of  the  extraordinary  learning 
and  ability  with  which  it  has  been  defended,  especially 
by  Baur ;  on  account,  also,  of  the  light  which  it  inci¬ 
dentally  throws  on  the  condition  of  the  apostolic 
church ;  and,  above  all,  on  account  of  that  increased 
confidence  in  the  strength  of  the  Christian  cause  which 
the  failure  of  this  assault  upon  it  is  fitted  to  inspire, 
deserves  a  fair  examination. 

Before  engaging  in  this  task,  it  may  be  well  to  say 
a  word  in  answer  to  an  inquiry  that  is  likely  to  occur 
to  the  mind  of  a  reader  not  conversant  with  the  early 
history  of  the  Church.  How,  it  may  naturally  be 
asked,  can  such  a  theory  as  that  of  the  modern  Tubin¬ 
gen  school,  denying  as  it  does  the  accepted  views 
respecting  the  origin  of  most  of  the  canonical  books 
of  the  New  Testament,  have  even  a  show  of  plausibil¬ 
ity  ?  How  can  it  keep  the  field  for  a  moment  in  the 
face  of  the  testimony  of  the  early  Church?  Such 
theories  are  possible,  we  reply,  for  the  reason  that  so 
scanty  and  fragmentary  remains  of  literature  have  come 
down  to  us  from  the  period  immediately  following  the 
apostolic  age.  After  the  death  of  the  leading  apostles 
and  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  there  succeeds  an 
interval  which  may  be  properly  styled  a  saeculum 


BAUR  S  THEORY. 


209 


obscuntm .  We  have  the  writings  of  John  which 
appeared  in  the  latter  part  of  the  first  century.  Then 
we  have  the  apostolic  Fathers.  But  these  writings  are 
not  of  a  nature  to  satisfy  many  of  the  most  important 
inquiries  in  regard  to  the  state  of  the  Church.  The 
early  Greek  Apologists,  if  we  possessed  them  intact, 
would  be  invaluable ;  but  the  first  copious  works  ema¬ 
nating  from  this  class  of  writers  are  the  treatises  of 
Justin  Martyr,  whose  earliest  extant  production  falls 
into  the  second  quarter  of  the  second  century.  Pre¬ 
cious,  from  a  historical  point  of  view,  as  these  works  of 
Justin  are,  they  consist  of  Apologies  to  the  Pagan  and 
to  the  Jew,  and  leave  unnoticed  many  points  on  which 
light  might  have  been  thrown,  had  their  author  been 
writing,  for  example,  on  some  subject  of  doctrinal 
theology.  In  brief,  so  far  as  this  very  interesting  era 
is  concerned,  we  have  peculiar  occasion  to  lament — to 
borrow  the  language  of  Grote  when  speaking  of  Greek 
literature  in  general — that  “we  possess  only  what  has 
drifted  ashore  from  the  wreck  of  a  stranded  vessel.”  1 
We  do  not  mean  that  the  internal  evidence  of  the  New 
Testament  documents,  the  numerous  items  of  proof 
gathered  from  relics  of  the  literature  of  the  next 
period,  and  the  testimony  of  the  great  writers  of  the 
second  half  of  the  second  century,  are  insufficient. 
They  do  constitute  a  body  of  evidence  which  effectually 
refutes  the  main  positions  of  the  Tubingen  school. 


1  Grote’s  Preface  to  tlie  History  of  Greece, 
14 


210 


PARTIES  IN  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH. 


But  for  the  reasons  we  liave  stated,  there  is  room  for 
the  essays  of  conjectural  criticism.  A  picture  of  the 
state  of  things  in  the  early  Church  may  be  drawn,  a 
theory  ingeniously  framed,  whose  inconsistency  with 
the  truth  is  not,  at  the  first  blush,  so  patent  as  to  pre¬ 
clude  the  need  of  a  careful  refutation.  Not  until  such 
a  theory  is  thoroughly  probed  and  compared  with 
the  multiform  evidence  pertaining  to  the  subject,  is  it 
clearly  seen  to  be  untenable. 

The  following  are  the  essential  points  in  Baur’s 
theory.1  The  doctrine  of  Christ  was,  in  principle,  an 
abolishment  of  the  Old  Testament  ritual  and  of  the 
distinction,  as  to  religious  rights  and  privileges,  be¬ 
tween  the  Jew  and  the  Gentile.  But  the  original  dis¬ 
ciples  did  not  advance  to  the  conclusion  which  lay 
impliedly  in  the  religious  ideas  of  the  Master.  On  the 
contrary,  they  persisted  to  the  end  in  the  traditional 
persuasion  that  the  way  of  salvation  was  through 
Judaism;  that  the  Gentile  must  enter  the  Church  by 
that  door,  and  that  the  uncircumcised  had  no  part  in 
the  Messiah’s  kingdom.  The  Apostle  Paul  alone  was 

1  We  have  drawn  our  representations  of  tlie  Tubingen  views 
chiefly  from  the  work  of  Baur,  the  title  of  which  is  given  at  the  begin¬ 
ning  of  this  Essay.  This  work  is  the  final,  condensed  presentation  of  his 
theory  relative  to  the  origin  and  early  history  of  Christianity.  The 
work  of  Lekebusch  (the  title  of  which  is  also  given  above)  is  the 

ablest  refutation,  with  which  we  are  acquainted,  of  Baur’s  theory  in 

/ 

its  bearing  on  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  In  this  branch  of  the  dis¬ 
cussion,  especially,  we  have  frequently  availed  ourselves  of  his  sug¬ 
gestions. 


BAUR’s  THEORY.  211 

so  enlightened  as  to  perceive  that  the  old  rites  were 
abrogated  by  the  nature  of  the  new  religion,  and  that 
the  Gentile  stood  on  an  equality  with  the  Jew,  faith 
being  the  sole  requirement.  Nay,  he  held  that  cir¬ 
cumcision  and  the  ritual  were  no  longer  admissible, 
since  they  implied  some  other  object  of  reliance  than 
Christ,  some  other  condition  of  salvation  besides  faith. 
Hence,  there  was  a  radical  difference  in  doctrine 
between  Peter  and  the  Jerusalem  Christians  on  the  one 
hand,  and  Paul  and  his  followers  on  the  other,  which 
led  to  a  personal  disagreement  and  estrangement 
between  these  two  apostolic  leaders.  There  grew  up 
two  antagonistic  types  of  Christianity,  two  divisions  of 
the  Church,  separate  and  unfriendly  to  each  other. 
Such  was  the  state  of  things  at  the  end  of  the  apos¬ 
tolic  age.  Then  followed  attempts  to  reconcile  the 
difference  and  to  bridge  the  gulf  that  separated  Gentile 
from  Jewish,  Pauline  from  Petrine  Christianity.  To 
this  end,  various  irenical  and  compromising  books  were 
written  in  the  name  of  the  apostles  and  their  helpers. 
The  only  Epistles  of  Paul  which  are  counted  as  genuine 
are  that  to  the  Romans,  that  to  the  Galatians,  and  the 
two  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians.  But  the  most  impor¬ 
tant  monument  of  this  pacifying  effort  is  the  book  of 
Acts,  written  in  the  earlier  part  of  the  second  century 
by  a  Pauline  Christian  who,  by  making  Paul  some¬ 
thing  of  a  Judaizer  and  then  representing  Peter  as 
agreeing  with  him  in  the  recognition  of  the  rights  of 
the  Gentiles,  hoped,  not  in  vain,  to  produce  a  mutual 


212 


PARTIES  IN  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH. 


friendliness  between  the  respective  partisans  of  the 
rival  apostles.  The  Acts  is  a  fiction  founded  on  facts, 
and  written  for  a  specific  doctrinal  purpose.  The  nar¬ 
rative  of  the  council  or  conference  of  the  apostles,  for 
example  (Acts  xv.),  is  pronounced  a  pure  invention  of 
the  writer,  and  such  a  representation  of  the  con¬ 
dition  of  things  as  is  inconsistent  with  Paul’s  own 
statements,  and,  for  this  and  other  reasons,  plainly 
false.  The  same  ground  is  taken  in  respect  to  the 
conversion  of  Cornelius  and  the  vision  of  Peter  attend¬ 
ing  it. 

Before  we  directly  examine  these  views,  let  us 
observe  the  main  facts  in  the  history  of  the  reception 
of  the  Gentiles  into  the  Church,  assuming,  for  the 
present,  that  the  documents  are  trustworthy.  We 
shall  show  hereafter,  especially  in  regard  to  the  Acts, 
that  the  impeachment  of  their  genuineness  and  credi¬ 
bility  cannot  be  sustained. 

Without  doubt,  Christ  himself  observed,  during 
his  life,  the  ceremonial  law.1  Until  that  law  should  be 
supplanted  by  his  finished  work — by  the  act  of  God 
who  gave  it — he  considered  it  obligatory.  As  a  faith¬ 
ful  servant,  he  came  under  the  law.  He  rejected, 
indeed,  the  traditions  of  the  elders,  the  ascetic,  super¬ 
stitious  practices  which  the  Pharisees  had  appended  to 
the  Old  Testament  legislation.  So  he  signified  the 

1  On  tlie  position  of  Christ  in  reference  to  the  law,  we  have  little 
difference  with  Baur.  Baur's  observations  on  this  topic  are  marked 


213 


baur’s  theory. 

authority  that  belonged  to  him  to  modify  the  law  by 
fulfilling  it,  or  carrying  it  forward  to  a  form  answering 
fully  to  the  idea  underlying  it- — as  when  he  declared 
himself  the  Lord  of  the  Sabbath  (Mark  ii.  28). 1  It 
is  true,  however,  that  complying  with  the  ritual  him¬ 
self,  he  also  bade  others  comply  with  it,  even  with  its 
minute  provisions.  At  the  same  time,  both  by  impli¬ 
cation  and  explicitly,  he  authorized  the  conclusion  that 
in  the  new  era  which  he  was  introducing,  the  cere¬ 
monies  of  the  law  would  have  no  longer  any  place,  nor 
would  they  be  required.  They  belonged  to  another,  a 
rudimental,  preparatory  system,  that  was  passing  away. 
The  barrier  between  Jew  and  Gentile  was  about  to  fall 
down.  The  sublime  declaration  of  Jesus  at  the  well 
of  Sychem  respecting  the  nature  of  acceptable  worship 
and  the  abolishment  of  all  restrictions  of  place,  as  well 
as  many  other  passages  hardly  less  significant,  will 
readily  occur  to  the  reader.  We  will  accommodate 
ourselves  to  the  predilection  of  the  Tubingen  critics  for 
the  Gospel  of  Matthew,  and  draw  some  illustrations 
from  that  source.  First,  the  spiritual  character  of  the 
doctrines  and  precepts  of  Jesus  is  a  most  impressive 
characteristic.  Righteousness  and  piety ,  as  described 
in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  belong  to  the  tempers  of 
the  heart.  The  inwardness  of  true  religion  was  never 
so  thoroughly  and  sublimely  laid  down  as  in  this  teach- 

by  his  usual  perspicuity  and  force.  See  Das  Christenthum ,  etc.,  s. 
25  seq. 

So  De  Wette  and  Meyer. 


214 


PARTIES  IN  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH. 


ing.  For  him  who  thus  taught,  what  value  could 
forms,  in  themselves  considered,  possess  ?  The  love  of 
God  and  man  is  the  sum  and  substance  of  duty ;  to 
be  perfect  as  the  Father  in  Fleaven  is  perfect,  the  sole 
aspiration.  Secondly,  in  his  direct  opposition  to  the 
Pharisees,  the  real  character  of  the  principles  of  Christ 
comes  out.  It  is  formalism — a  trust  in  forms — which 
calls  forth  his  reprobation.  “Not  that  which  goeth 
into  the  mouth  defileth  a  man ;  but  that  which  cometh 
out  of  the  mouth/’  “  Those  things  which  proceed  out 
of  the  .mouth  come  forth  from  the  heart ;  and  they 
defile  the  man  ”  “  But  to  eat  with  unwashen  hands 

defileth  not  a  man.”  (Matt.  xv.  11,  18,  20).  What  a 
simple  and  luminous  exposition  of  the  nature  of  good 
and  evil !  How  clear  that  in  the  eyes  of  Jesus,  forms 
had  no  inherent  value,  no  abiding  existence  !  The 
abrogation  of  the  former  system  he  affirmed  and 
explained  by  saying  that  new  wine  must  not  be  put  in 
old  bottles,  or  new  cloth  patched  into  an  old  garment. 
Flow  could  he  more  pointedly  affirm  that  he  was 
establishing  a  system  so  far  different  from  the  old,  that 
the  features  of  the  two  could  not  be  blended?  To 
cling  to  the  old  ritual,  as  something  essential,  would 
have  the  effect  to  destroy  the  fundamental  peculiarity 
of  the  new  system.  Attempt  it  not,  “lest  the  bottles 
should  break  and  the  wine  be  spilled”  (Matt.  ix.  17 
paral.).  This,  be  it  remembered,  was  in  reply  to  tlie 
question,  why  his  disciples  abstained  from  fasting. 
Thirdly,  Christ  forewarned  his  Jewish  hearers  that  the 


BATJr’s  THEORY.  215 

Gentiles  would  even  take  tlieir  place  in  gaining  posses¬ 
sion  of  the  blessings  of  the  new  kingdom.  In  con- 
nection  with  the  centurion’s  exhibition  of  faith  in  the 
power  of  Jesus  to  heal  his  absent  servant,  he  said  that 
many  would  come  from  the  east  and  west,  many  Gen¬ 
tiles,  and  sit  down  with  the  Patriarchs  in  the  kingdom 
of  Heaven,  whilst  the  children  of  the  kingdom — the 
natural  expectants  of  the  inheritance — would  be  cast 
out  (Matt.  vii.  11,  12).  In  the  parable  of  the  vine¬ 
yard  and  the  rebellious  husbandmen,  who  stand  for  the 
Jews,  their  crime  in  slaying  the  messengers  of  the 
owner,  and  finally  his  son  and  heir,  leads  to  their 
destruction  and  to  the  letting  out  of  “  the  vineyard 
unto  other  husbandmen .”  The  Jews,  rejecting  the 
Messiah,  are  to  be  supplanted  by  the  Gentiles.  In 
keeping  with  such  teaching  are  the  predictions  uttered . 
by  Christ  concerning  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and 
the  downfall  of  the  temple.  Looking  down  upon  the 
city,  he  said  :  “  Behold  your  house  is  left  unto  you 

desolate  !  ”  But  the  disciples  were  commanded  to 
carry  the  gospel  to  the  Gentiles — to  disciple  the 
nations.  That  the  Gentiles  were  to  be  embraced  in 
the  Messianic  kingdom  was  a  familiar  part  of  prophecy. 
As  to  how  the  kingdom  was  to  be  extended  over  them, 
was  a  point  in  regard  to  which  the  prevalent  anticipa¬ 
tions  were  colored  by  the  mistaken  ideas  and  unspiritual 
ambition  of  the  people.  But  the  incorporation  of  the 
Gentiles,  in  some  way,  into  the  Messiah’s  kingdom,  all 
the  Jews  expected.  Christ  commanded  that  the  same 


216 


PARTIES  IN  THE  APOSTOLIC  CIIURCII. 


gospel  which  the  disciples  had  received  themselves 
should  be  offered  to  their  acceptance — adding  the 
direction  that  the  believer  should  be  baptized,  and  the 
promise  that  he  should  be  saved.  All  other  points  he 
left  to  be  settled  in  the  light  of  providential  events  and 
under  the  subsequent  teaching  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  In 
accordance  with  that  reserve  which  adapted  the  dis¬ 
closure  of  truth  to  the  recipiency  of  the  learner,  Christ 
went  no  farther  than  to  throw  out  the  great  principles, 
the  command  and  the  intimations  which  have  been 
adverted  to,  not  defining  precisely  either  what  course 
the  heathen  were  to  take  with  reference  to  the  Mosaic 
ritual,  or  what  was  to  become  of  ceremonial  Judaism. 
These  things  the  apostles  were  left  to  learn,  in  the 
prosecution  of  their  work,  by  the  outward  instruction 
of  providential  events  and  the  inward  illumination  by 
the  Spirit.  This  reserve  on  the  part  of  Christ  is  a 
characteristic  and  impressive  example  of  the  divine 
method  of  teaching.  Instead  of  tearing  up  the  old 
institutions — sweeping  them  away  by  a  peremptory 
edict,  before  the  mind  was  prepared  for  the  change 
by  perceiving  that  they  had  become  superfluous,  he  left 
the  Church  to  be  first  educated  up  to  the  requisite 
point.  The  dropping  of  the  old  forms  was  to  result, 
as  a  logical  and  necessary  consequence,  from  the  expan¬ 
sive  force  of  the  new  system.  The  logic  of  events — • 
the  full  comprehension  of  the  gospel — the  distinct 
understanding  of  the  offices  of  Christ — would  under¬ 
mine  and  supplant  the  ritual  law.  How  much  better 


BAUll’s  THEORY. 


217 


for  the  revolution  to  take  plaee  thus,  than  to  he  precipi¬ 
tated  by  an  abrupt  decree,  enforced  as  a  law  from 
without  upon  minds  which  had  gained  no  insight  into 
the  ground  and  reason  for  a  seeming  repeal  of  divinely 
given  statutes  ! 

Let  us  now  proceed  to  note  the  manner  in  which 
the  great  lesson  was  learned.  The  apostles,  and  the 
infant  church  at  Jerusalem  under  their  guidance, 
continue  to  observe  the  ceremonies  of  the  law  as  of 
old.  They  have  no  thought  of  dispensing  with  cir¬ 
cumcision  and  the  other  requirements  of  the  ritual. 
They  are  Jews,  believing  in  the  Messiah.  The  first 
murmur  of  difference  in  that  young  community,  of 
which  the  opening  part  of  Acts  presents  so  delightful 
a  picture,  is  the  complaint  of  the  Hellenists — the 
foreign,  Greek-speaking  Jews — that  their  poor  are 
neglected  in  the  distribution  of  alms.  This  little 

incident,  apart  from  its  immediate  consequence,  is 
significant  as  bringing  before  us  the  two  classes  of 

Jews,  which,  though  closely  and  cordially  united  by 

a  common  descent  and  common  creed,  are  yet  in  some 
respects  dissimilar,  as  subsequent  events  prove.  Of 
the  deacons  chosen,  one  is  said  to  have  been  a 

proselyte  of  righteousness  ;  that  is,  a  heathen  admitted 
by  circumcision  to  a  full  participation  in  the  privileges 
of  the  Jew.  The  persecution  attending  the  martyrdom 
of  Stephen 1  disperses  the  Church  and  leads  to  the 

1  Stephen  was  a  Hellenist.  lie  was  charged  by  “false  witnesses ” 
with  blaspheming  the  temple  and  the  law,  and  with  saying  that 


218 


PARTIES  IN  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH. 


first  effective  preaching  of  the  word  beyond  Jerusalem. 
The  vision  of  Peter,  and  the  baptism  of  Cornelius, 
are  the  earliest  recognition  of  Gentile  Christianity. 
Whether  Cornelius  was,  or  was  not,  a  proselyte  of 
the  gate,  cannot  be  determined,  nor  is  the  question 
very  material.  The  previous  feeling  of  Peter  and 
the  Jerusalem  Christians,  as  to  the  qualifications 
for  admission  to  the  Christian  Church,  is  seen  in 
his  remark  on  the  occasion  of  his  interview  with 
Cornelius  :  “  Ye  know  how  that  it  is  an  unlawful  thing 
for  a  man  that  is  a  Jew  to  keep  company  or  come 
unto  one  of  another  nation.” 2  Moreover,  on  his 
return  to  Jerusalem,  “  they  that  were  of  the  circum¬ 
cision  ” — the  Jewish  Christians — call  him  to  account 
for  having  eaten  with  Gentiles  (Acts  xi.  2,  3).  His 
defence  is  a  recapitulation  of  the  circumstances  of  his 
vision  and  a  statement  of  the  fact  that  the  gifts  of 

Jesus  of  Nazareth,  would  “destroy  this  place,”  and  “change  the 
customs”  delivered  by  Moses  (Acts  vi.  13,  14).  The  witnesses 
were  “false,”  since  doubtless  they  maliciously  perverted  what 
Stephen  had  said.  Yet  it  is  evident  from  the  tone  of  his  speech — 
see  especially  Acts  vii.  47-50,  and  the  denunciation  he  was  uttering 
when  he  was  interrupted — that  the  charge  was  not  a  pure  invention, 
but  was  built  up  on  what  Stephen  had  said.  See  Meander’s 
ApostelgeschicMe ,  B.  I.  s.  86. 

2  Abstinence  to  this  extent  from  intercourse  with  the  heathen 
was  not  enjoined  in  the  Pentateuch.  But  Peter’s  remark  repre¬ 
sents  the  feeling  and  usual  practice  of  the  later  Jews.  The  prose¬ 
lyte  of  the  gate  was  uncircumcised,  so  that  there  was  a  like  repug¬ 
nance  to  intercourse  with  him — at  least  to  sitting  at  the  table  with 
him. 


baur’s  theory. 


219 


the  Spirit  had  been  exhibited  by  the  new  converts. 

“  Forasmuch,”  he  says,  “  then,  as  God  gave  them  the 
like  gift  as  he  did  unto  us  who  believed  on  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  what  was  I  that  I  could  withstand  God?” 
This  explanation  for  the  time  appeases  the  discontent. 
But  the  principal  event  is  the  establishment  of  a 
Gentile  church,  or  a  church  made  up  partly  of  con¬ 
verted  and  baptized  heathen,  at  Antioch.  We  read 
that  those  who  were  scattered  abroad  by  the  persecu¬ 
tion  following  the  death  of  Stephen  “  travelled  as  far 
as  Phenice,  and  Cyprus,  and  Antioch,  preaching  the 
word  unto  none  hut  unto  Jews  only.  And  some  of 
them  were  men  of  Cyprus  and  Cyrene,  which  when  y 
they  were  come  to  Antioch  spake  unto  the  Grecians ,” 
not  Hellenists  but  Hellenes,  “  preaching  the  Lord 
Jesus.”  A  great  number  of  the  Grecians — uncir¬ 
cumcised  Gentiles — moved  by  that  sense  of  spiritual 
necessities  which  prevailed  so  extensively  among  the 
heathen  throughout  the  Homan  world,  believed  in 
Christ.  Observe  it  was  men  of  Cyprus  and  Cyrene — « 
Hellenists — who  laid  the  foundation  of  this  Gentile 
church.  Barnabas,  himself  a  Jew  by  birth,  but  a 
native  of  Cyprus,  is  sent  from  Jerusalem  to  visit  this 
rising  church  so  strangely  composed.  Seeing  the 
reality  of  the  work  of  grace  which  had  been  effected, 
he  rejoiced  in  it,  and  having  brought  Paul — who  was 
also,  by  birth  a  Hellenist — from  Tarsus,  whither  he 
had  retired,  the  two  labored  together  for  a  year, 

“  and  taught  much  people.”  Paul  is  now  fairly 


220 


PARTIES  IN  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH. 


embarked  upon  the  grand  work  of  his  life.  Partly 
on  account  of  the  peculiarity  of  his  inward  experience 
and  partly  on  account  of  the  depth  and  logical  force 
of  his  mind — not  to  speak  of  special  enlightenment 
from  above — he  discerned  most  clearly  that  faith, 
and  faith  alone,  is  the  condition  of  salvation ;  that  to 
make  the  soul  depend  for  pardon  upon  legal  obser¬ 
vances  along  with  faith,  is  to  set  the  ground  of 
salvation,  partially  at  least,  outside  of  Christ,  and  to 
found  the  Christian  hope  upon  self-righteousness 
instead  of  his  merits.  He  went  straight  to  the 
unavoidable  inference  that  the  ritual  system  is  not 
to  be  observed  as  a  means  of  salvation,  and  is  in  no 
sense  obligatory  upon  the  Gentiles.  Thus  Paul  stands 
forth,  in  this  part  of  the  apostolic  age,  the  glorious 
champion  of  the  freedom  and  universality  of  the 
gospel.  It  is  a  religion  for  the  world — not  for  the 
Jew  alone,  but  for  the  Gentile  equally.  The  wall  that 
divided  the  two  classes  of  mankind,  “  the  hand-writing 
of  ordinances  ”  being  now  blotted  out,  has  been 
levelled  to  the  ground.  The  missionary  journey  of 
Paul  and  Barnabas  greatly  enlarged  the  number  of 
heathen  converts ;  for  when  they  had  first  preached 
to  the  Jews  in  the  places  they  visited,  they  then 
turned  to  the  Gentiles.  After  their  return  they 
continued  their  labors  at  Antioch,  now  the  parent 
of  churches  among  the  heathen,  and  the  second 
metropolis,  as  it  were,  of  Christianity.  But  the 
church  of  Antioch  is  disturbed  by  certain  men  which 


baur’s  theory. 


•w  .v  _L 

came  down  from  Judea — judaizers — who  declared 
the  necessity  of  circumcision  for  salvation.  As  the 
result  of  the  “no  small  dissension  and  disputation 
with  them/’  it  is  determined  to  send  Paul  and 
Barnabas  at  the  head  of  a  deputation  to  Jerusalem 
to  confer  with  the  apostles  and  elders  upon  this 
question.  Of  this  visit,  besides  the  narrative  in  the 
Acts,  we  have  the  advantage  of  an  invaluable  notice 
from  the  pen  of  Paul  himself  (Gal.  ii.).  Waiving  for 
the  present  the  consideration  of  this  last  passage,  we 
see  from  the  account  of  Luke,  that  when  the  mes¬ 
sengers  from  Antioch  had  been  received  by  their 
brethren  at  Jerusalem,  “  certain  of  the  sect  of  the 
Pharisees  which  believed ”  brought  forward  their 
demand,  that  the  Gentile  converts  should  be  Circum¬ 
cised  and  required  to  observe  the  Mosaic  law.  It  is 
interesting  to  notice  that  the  zealous  judaizers  were 
converted  Pharisees.  After  much  disputing,  Peter 
and  James  interpose ;  the  former  referring  to  the 
events  connected  with  the  baptism  of  Cornelius,  and 
both  rejecting  the  proposition  of  the  judaizers.  Their 
judgment  and  that  of  the  church  was,  that  certain 
statutes  which  the  Jew  deemed  most  essential,  should 
be  complied  with  by  the  heathen  converts.  They 
were  to  abstain  “  from  meats  offered  to  idols,  and 
from  blood,  and  from  things  strangled,  and  from 
fornication.”  The  fact  of  the  reading  of  the  law  of 
Moses  in  the  synagogues  of  every  city  on  the  Sabbath, 
is  set  forth  as  a  reason  for  the  propriety  of  this  re- 


222 


PARTIES  IN  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH. 


quirement. 1  Thus,  so  far  as  the  influence  of  the 
apostles  went,  this  great  question  was  put  to  rest, 

1  The  precise  significance  of  this  reason  lias  been  a  mooted  point 
among  commentators.  Of  the  various  interpretations  which  have 
been  suggested,  it  appears  to  us  that  the  choice  lies  between  two. 
Some  would  paraphrase  the  passage  thus:  “as  to  the  Jews,  they 
need  no  prescription,  since  they  will  of  course  follow  the  law  which 
is  read  on  the  Sabbath.”  This  was  the  interpretation  of  Chrysostom, 
and  is  adopted  by  Meander.  Others,  including  Meyer  and  Lekebusch, 
make  the  passage  a  statement  of  the  reason  why  the  Gentiles  were 
to  conform  in  these  particulars  to  the  Jewish  law  ;  the  reason, 
namely,  that  the  reading  of  the  law  in  the  synagogues  every  Sab¬ 
bath,  rendered  it  more  offensive  to  the  Jews  to  see  that  law,  in  these 
conspicuous  points,  disregarded.  This  appears  to  us  to  be  the  true 
sense  of  the  passage.  Gieseler,  and  also  Baur,  would  make  the 
passage  signify  by  implication,  that  “the  Jewish  law  had  proved 
itself  ineffectual  for  the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles,  whilst  the  oppo¬ 
site  result  in  connection  with  the  preaching  of  Paul  and  his  asso¬ 
ciates,  had  shown  the  ceremonial  law  to  be  the  only  hindrance  to 
the  spread  of  the  true  religion.”  Ewald  suggests  that  the  reason 
was  advanced  to  pacify  the  fear  of  those  who  thought  that  the 
Mosaic  law  would  fall  into  disuse  if  this  indulgence  were  extended 
to  the  Gentile  converts.  Both  these  interpretations  seem  to  us 
much  less  natural  than  the  one  we  have  approved.  The  view  we 
adopt  is  supported  by  the  authority  of  Professor  Ilackett  in  his 
scholarly  work  on  the  Acts. 

As  to  the  decision  itself,  it  consists  of  four  particulars.  The 
heathen  converts  were  to  abstain  from  the  flesh  of  animals  slain  as  a 
sacrifice  to  idols,  from  using  the  blood  of  animals  for  food,  from 
fornication,  and  from  eating  animals  who  had  been  strangled  or  put 
to  death  by  any  other  mode  than  by  shedding  their  blood.  The 
first  of  these  was  in  compliance  with  Ex.  xxxiv.  15.  The  second  and 
the  fourth  were  Levitical  statutes,  and  founded  on  the  sacredness 
of  blood.  The  third,  a  moral  prohibition,  was  joined  with  these 
adiaphora ,  because  in  the  progress  of  heathen  corruption  it  had 
come  to  be  regarded  as  almost  an  adiaphoron — a  thing  morally 


baur’s  theory. 


223 


and  on  grounds  satisfactory  to  Paul  and  his  coad¬ 
jutors.  But  the  judaizing  party  was  far  from  resting 
satisfied  under  this  most  Christian  arrangement.  As 
all  know,  they  pursued  the  Apostle  Paul  wherever 
he  went,  sowing  division  in  the  churches  he  planted 
and  striving  to  destroy  the  esteem  in  which  he  was 
held  by  his  converts.  They  seem  to  have  sometimes 
made  use  of  the  name  of  Peter,  and  to  have  pretended 
to  be  his  followers,  and  we  find  a  self-styled  party 
of  Peter  among  the  opponents  of  Paul  in  the  Corin¬ 
thian  church. 

After  the  conference  at  Jerusalem,  there  are  two 
occurrences  that  deserve  special  notice.  The  one 
is  the  controversy  of  Paul  and  Peter,  or,  rather,  the 
rebuke  of  Peter  by  Paul  at  Antioch.  Peter  had 
associated  freely  with  the  Gentile  converts — had  eaten 
with  them.  But  on  the  arrival  of  certain  judaizing 
Christians  from  Jerusalem,  he  changed  his  course  out 
of  a  timid  regard  to  their  prejudice,  and  withdrew 
from  the  Gentile  believers.  Even  Barnabas  was  led 
to  follow  his  example.  Paul  publicly  “  withstood  ” 
Peter,  saying:  “If  thou  then,  being  a  Jew,  livest 
after  the  manner  of  the  Gentiles  (ed'vixcog),  why  com- 
pellest  thou  the  Gentiles  to  live  as  do  the  Jews 
{iovhaiQtiv)  ?  ”  We  shall  hereafter  consider  this 
controversy  more  at  length.  Here  we  merely  call 


indifferent.  See  on  this  point,  Winer’s  Beal.  Worterl Art.  Eure , 
and  Meyer  on  Acts  xv.  20. 


224 


PARTIES  IN  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH. 


attention  to  the  ground  of  Paul’s  complaint,  which 
was  a  dereliction  from  his  own  principles,  or  hypo¬ 
critical  conduct,  on  the  part  of  Peter.  The  charge 
was  that  “he  walked  not  uprightly.”  It  was  not 
an  error  of  opinion,  but  a  moral  error,  which  Paul 
censured. 

The  other  occurrence  requiring  special  notice, 
is  the  last  visit  of  Paul  to  Jerusalem.  The  narrative 
of  Luke  gives  us  a  clear  view  of  the  state  of  things 
in  the  church  there.  Paul  and  his  associates  were 
cordially  received.  But  when  he  had  recounted  to 
the  apostles  the  fruits  of  his  ministry  among  the 
Gentiles,  and  they  had  welcomed  the  intelligence, 
James  informs  him  of  a  prejudice  against  him  in  the 
minds  of  many,  owing  to  a  report  which  had  gained 
credence.  He  had  been  charged,  doubtless  by  Jews 
and  Judaizers  from  Asia  and  the  west,  with  having 
urged  the  foreign,  Greek -speaking  Jews — the  Helle¬ 
nists — to  forsake  the  Mosaic  law  and  abstain  from 
circumcising  their  children.  This  accusation  was  false. 
The  J ewisli-Christian  members  of  the  Gentile  churches 
were,  not  unlikely,  as  Ewald  conjectures,  falling  away 
from  the  observance  of  the  ritual.  And  this  might 
have  given  occasion  to  the  charge  against  Paul.  But 
there  is  not  a  particle  of  evidence  tending  to  show 
that  he  ever  sought  to  dissuade  Jews  from  complying 
with  the  ritual.  He  rejected  the  doctrine  that  the 
observance  of  the  law  is  essential  to  salvation.  He 
rejected  the  doctrine  that  the  observance  of  it  was 


f 


POSITION  OF  TIIE  APOSTLE  PAUL.  225 

obligatory  upon  Gentile  converts  ;  and  the  adoption 
by  them  of  the  Jewish  ritual  under  the  idea  that 
salvation  was  contingent  upon  observing  it,  he  re¬ 
garded  as  a  fatal  error — as  a  dishonor  to  the  suffi¬ 
ciency  of  Christ,  and  a  method  of  self-righteousness. 

c 

But  his  opposition  to  the  law  extended  no  farther. 
On  the  contrary,  as  he  himself  said,  to  the  Jews  he 
made  himself  a  Jew.  He  respected  their  national 
feelings  and  customs.  Hence  he  found  no  difficulty 
in  taking  upon  him  the  vow  which  James  recommend¬ 
ed,  as  a  visible  proof  that  the  charges  against  him 
were  false,  and  that  he  wras  no  renegade  from  the 
religion  of  his  fathers.1  But  this  act  did  not  save 
him  from  the  fanatical  hatred  of  the  Jews  from  Asia — • 
the  unbelieving  Jews  who  had  so  often  stirred  up 
tumults  against  him  in  the  towns  where  he  had 
preached.  However  he  may  have  pacified  the  believ¬ 
ing  Jews  by  showing  respect  for  the  national  customs, 
he  did  not  secure  himself  from  the  violence  of  the 
Asian  Jews  who  were  present  in  the  city  in  large 
numbers,  and  in  addition  to  them  old  enmity  were 
exasperated  by  the  erroneous  impression  that  Paul 
had  taken  Trophimus,  an  Ephesian  Gentile  whom 
they  had  seen  with  him,  into  the  temple.  Hence  the 
mob,  which  had  for  its  final  consequence  the  journey 

7 

of  the  apostle  to  Borne. 

From  this  survey  we  are  brought  to  the  conclusion 

1  The  feeling  of  James  respecting  the  propriety  of  observing  the 
law  is  plainly  discovered  in  Acts  xxi.  24. 

15 


226 


PARTIES  IN  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH. 


that  while  it  is  true  that  the  Apostle  Paul  understood 
the  relations  of  the  new  and  the  old  dispensation  with 
peculiar  clearness,  and  vindicated  the  liberty  of  the 
Gentiles  with  a  singular  depth  of  conviction  and  an 
unvarying  consistency,  it  is  nevertheless  true,  also, 
that  Peter  and  the  original  apostles,  and  the  church 
of  Jerusalem,  as  far  as  its  public  action  is  concerned, 
were  in  cordial  fellowship  with  Paul  and  willingly 
tolerated  the  Gentile  branch  of  the  church,  not 
imposing  upon  it  the  yoke  of  the  law,  with  the  excep¬ 
tion  of  the  few  prudential  regulations  recommended 
by  the  apostolic  convention. 

Baur  and  his  followers  maintain  an  opposite 
opinion.  There  existed,  they  hold,  a  radical  opposi¬ 
tion  in  principle  between  these  two  branches  of  the 
church,  which  involved  a  mutual  antagonism  on  the 
part  of  their  apostolic  leaders.  The  proof  of  this 
position  Baur  professes  to  find  chiefly  in  certain 
expressions  of  the  Apostle  Paul  in  his  Epistles,  which 
are  alleged  to  be  inconsistent  with  many  of  the 
representations  found  in  the  Acts.  Prom  the  two 
Epistles  to  the  Corinthians  and  the  Epistle  to  the 
Galatians,  Baur  draws  most  of  the  arguments  on 
which  he  relies  to  establish  his  position.  There  was 
in  the  Corinthian  church,  wre  are  told,  a  party  which 
denied  that  Paul  had  a  right  to  consider  himself  an 
apostle,  and  sought  to  supplant  him  by  setting  up 
the  superior  authority  of  Peter  and  the  rest  of  the 
original  disciples  of  Christ.  This  party  was  stirred 


baur’s  theory. 


227 


up  by  Jewish  Christians  who  brought  the  letters  of 
recommendation  from  Jerusalem,  to  which  Paul 
sarcastically  alludes.1  In  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians, 
it  is  said,  the  radical  diversity  of  principles  between 
the  two  types  of  Christianity,  already  developed  in 
the  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians,  is  attended  with  the 
record  of  a  personal  alienation  between  Peter  and 
Paul,  which,  so  far  as  we  know,  was  never  healed. 
In  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  Paul  is  supposed  to 
write  in  a  milder  and  more  conciliatory  spirit  ;  an¬ 
nouncing  his  intention  to  carry  the  contribution  of 
money  to  Jerusalem,  and  in  other  ways  manifesting 
a  disposition  to  overcome  the  hostility  which,  it  is 
pretended,  existed  against  him  and  his  doctrine  on 

does  Baur 

dwell  upon  the  account  in  the  Acts  of  the  circumcision 
of  Timothy,  asserting  that  such  an  act  would  be 
absolutely  incompatible  with  the  doctrine  laid  down 
by  Paul  (Gal.  v.  2) :  “  If  ye  be  circumcised,  Christ 
shall  profit  you  nothing.”  Other  instances  of  con¬ 
formity  to  the  Jewish  law,  which  are  attributed  to 
Paul  in  the  Acts,  he  pronounces  to  be  equally 
unhistorical.  The  entire  representation  given  there 
of  the  personal  relations  of  Paul  to  Peter  and  his 
associates,  Baur  affirms  to  be  contrary  to  the  in¬ 
timations  and  assertions  of  Paul,  and  to  be  con¬ 
tradicted,  in  particular,  by  Paul’s  narrative  of  his 

Such  letters  might  be  taken,  probably,  by  any  Christian  who 
was  rectus  in  ecclesia ,  in  case  he  wished  to  travel. 


the  side  of  the  mother- church.  Especially 


22S 


PARTIES  IN  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH. 


conference  with  the  apostles,  in  the  second  chapter 
of  Galatians. 

We  believe  that  these  propositions  of  the  Tubin¬ 
gen  critics  are  not  sustained  by  the  evidence  to  which 
they  appeal,  but  are  flatly  contradicted  by  it,  and  that 
their  positions  are  contrary  to  the  truth.  What 
evidence  is  there,  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians, 
of  such  a  division  and  hostility  as  Baur  affirms  to  have 
existed  ?  There  was  a  faction  which  claimed  to  be 
the  disciples  of  Peter.  But  what  proof  is  there  that 
he  gave  them  any  countenance  ?  There  was  also, 
among  the  opponents  of  Paul,  a  party  claiming  to 
follow  Apollos — himself  a  disciple  of  the  Pauline 
doctrine.  Who  pretends  that  Apollos  encouraged 
such  a  movement  ?  To  our  mind,  all  the  language  of 
Paul  in  reference  to  the  other  apostles  which  is 
found  in  these  Epistles,  proves  the  opposite  of  Baur’s 
proposition.  The  apostles  are  spoken  of  as  one 
body  of  fellow -laborers.  In  vindicating  his  authority 
against  the  aspersions  cast  upon  him,  Paul  asserts, 
to  be  sure,  that  “he  is  not  a  whit  behind  the  very 
chiefest  apostles  ”  (2  Cor.  xi.  5).  But  he  does  not 
say  or  insinuate  that  “  the  chiefest  apostles  ”  are  no 
apostles,  or  that  they  are  perverters  of  the  truth. 
The  opposite  of  this  is  everywhere  implied.  He  says : 
“  God  has  set  forth  us  the  apostles  last,  as  it  were 
appointed  to  death ;  ”  and  in  the  record  of  hardship 
that  follows,  he  associates  with  himself  his  fellow- 
apostles.  Witness  also  his  appeal  to  the  testimony 


baur’s  theory. 


229 


of  the  other  apostles — of  Peter,  James,  and  the  rest — 
in  proof  of  the  Resurrection  of  Christ,  and  the  coup-  x. 
ling  of  their  testimony  with  the  reference  to  the 
appearance  of  Christ  to  himself :  “  Por  I  am  the  least 
of  the  apostles  and  not  worthy  to  be  called  an  apostle, 
because  I  persecuted  the  Church  of  God/’  He  com¬ 
pares  himself  with  the  other  apostles  and  takes  the 
lowest  place  among  them !  But  a  more  striking  re¬ 
futation  of  Baur’s  view  is  contained  in  the  remarks  of 
Paul  upon  the  contribution  he  was  collecting  for  the 
poor  brethren  at  Jerusalem.  In  the  Pirst  Epistle  he 
exhorts  the  Corinthians  to  aid  in  making  up  this 
“  contribution  for  the  saints  ” — saints  it  appears  they 
were,  notwithstanding  their  supposed  heresy  and 
hostility !  And  in  the  Second  Epistle  he  speaks  of 
the  matter  more  at  length.  He  had  long  been 
engaged  in  this  charitable  service  (ix.  2).  He  says 
that  the  conveyance,  by  his  instrumentality,  of  this 
contribution,  will  not  only  relieve  “  the  wants  of  the 
saints/’  but  will  call  forth  at  Jerusalem  “  thanks¬ 
giving  unto  God;  ”  that  the  church  at  Jerusalem 
will  find  occasion  to  glorify  God  for  the  faithfulness 
of  the  Corinthians  in  thus  practically  carrying  out 
their  Christian  profession,  and  for  the  genuineness 
of  their  Christian  fellowship  ( xotvaviag )  manifested  in 
this  liberality.  He  adds  that  the  saints  at  Jerusalem 
with  prayer  “  will  long  after  you  ”  on  account  of  the 
abounding  grace  of  God  vouchsafed  to  you.  A  deep, 
yearning,  prayerful  interest  will  be  excited  towards 


230 


PARTIES  IN  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH. 


the  Corinthian  Christians  in  the  hearts  of  their 
brethren  at  Jerusalem.  Who  can  believe  that  this 
contribution  is  going  to  a  church  which  is  considered 
by  Paul  to  be  made  up  of  Judaizers — professors  of 
what  he  calls  another  gospel  ?  If  the  Corinthians 
had  understood  Paul’s  letter  to  them  as  Baur  does, 
what  must  have  been  their  surprise  at  these  incon¬ 
gruous  exhortations  and  expressions  of  fraternal  re¬ 
gard  for  the  Jerusalem  believers  !  Turn  we  now  to 
the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  written  not  long  after. 
There  we  find  the  apostle  pouring  out  his  love  and 
compassion  for  his  kinsmen  according  to  the  flesh — 
explaining  that  the  apparent  rejection  of  them  by 
Divine  Providence  is  temporary.  Of  the  contribution 
he  says  :  “  Now  I  go  unto  Jerusalem  to  minister  unto 
the  saints.  Eor  it  hath  pleased  them  of  Macedonia 
and  Achaia  to  make  a  certain  contribution  for  the  poor 
saints  which  are  at  Jerusalem.  It  hath  pleased  them 
verily,  and  their  debtors  they  are.  Eor  if  the  Gentiles 
have  been  made  partakers  of  their  spiritual  things” — • 
for  Jerusalem  was  the  mother-church  whence  Chris¬ 
tianity  with  all  its  blessings  flowed  out  to  the  Gentiles 
— “  their  duty  is  also  to  minister  unto  them  in  carnal 
things”  (Rom.  xv.  25  seq.).1  Plere  the  Apostle  Paul 
honors  the  Jerusalem  church  as  the  fountain  whence 
the  Gentiles  have  derived  their  Christianity.  Are 
these  expressions  compatible  with  the  notion  that  this 

1  Principally  on  account  of  its  alleged  complaisance  towards  the 
Jewish  Christians,  the  xvth  chapter  (as  well  as  the  xvith)  of  this 


baur’s  theory. 


231 


church  had  no  fellowship  with  the  uncircumcised 
converts  of  Christianity,  and  that  its  leaders  were 
hostile  to  Paul,  and  in  turn  considered  by  him  to  be 
involved  in  fundamental  error?  The  assertion  or 
insinuation  by  Baur,  that  there  was  any  essential 
change  in  Paul’s  feeling  between  the  writing;  of  the 
Epistles  to  the  Corinthians  and  Galatians,  and  that 
to  the  Bpmans,  is  without  foundation.  During  the 
whole  period  in  which  the  composition  of  the  first- 
named  Epistles  occurred,  Paul  was  interested  in  the 
business  of  gathering  the  contribution  which  he  after¬ 
wards  carried  to  Jerusalem. 

But  the  main  reliance  of  Baur  is  on  Paul’s  narra¬ 
tive,  in  the  second  chapter  of  Galatians,  of  his  confer¬ 
ence  with  the  apostles  and  his  subsequent  conflict 
with  Peter  at  Antioch.  But  an  examination  of  this 
interesting  passage,  instead  of  confirming  Baur's 
theory,  will,  as  we  think,  demonstrate  its  falsity.  Be 
it  remembered  that  Paul  is  writing  to  a  church  which 
the  Judaizers  had  tried  to  turn  away  both  from  his 

Epistle  is  declared  by  Baur — without  the  shadow  of  external  proof 
and  contrary  to  the  internal  evidence  of  both  style  and  thought — to 
be  an  interpolation.  His  argument  is  a  mere  petitio  principii.  The 
arbitrary  attempt  to  cast  these  inconvenient  passages  out  of  the 
Epistle,  is  well  answered  by  Meyer  in  his  Commentary  on  the  Romans 
(K.  xv.).  Bleek,  a  cautious  and  unprejudiced  critic,  says,  in  reference 
to  the  denial  by  Baur  and  Schwegler  of  the  genuineness  of  the  last 
two  chapters  of  the  Epistle:  “The  grounds  for  this  denial  are  wholly 
false  and  untenable,  and  the  genuineness  of  these  chapters,  as  well 
as  the  fact  of  their  belonging  to  our  Epistle,  is  to  be  regarded  as 
certain.”  Einl.  in  d.  JV.  T7.,  s.  416. 


232 


PARTIES  IN  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH. 


doctrine  and  from  their  esteem  and  respect  for  his 
person  and  apostolic  authority.  He  is  placed  under 
the  necessity  of  explaining  his  relations  to  the  other 
apostles ;  and  this  he  does  by  showing,  on  the  one 
hand,  his  own  independence  and  equality  with  them, 
and,  on  the  other,  the  full  recognition  and  fellowship 
which  they  had  accorded  to  him.  lie  is  speaking 
of  the  same  visit  which  Luke  describes  in  the  fifteenth 
chapter  of  the  Acts.  Fourteen  years  after  his  first 
visit  to  Jerusalem,  when  he  had  spent  a  fortnight  with 
Peter  (i.  18),  he  went  there  in  company  with  Barnabas 
and  Titus.  He  communicated  “  privately  to  them 
which  were  of  reputation  ”  ( roig  doxovac),  the  gospel 
which  he  was  in  the  habit  of  preaching.1  His  motive 
in  taking  this  course  is  set  forth  in  the  following 
words  :  “  lest  by  any  means  I  should  run,  or  had  run, 
in  vain.”  That  is  to  say,  he  explained  his  method  of 
preaching  in  order  that  he  might  be  rightly  judged 
and  appreciated  by  his  fellow-apostles.  We  shall  see, 
as  we  proceed,  whether  or  not  he  was  successful. 
Before  stating  the  result  of  his  conference,  he  de¬ 
scribes  the  ineffectual  attempt  of  “  false  brethren 
unawares  brought  in  ”  to  procure  the  circumcision 
of  Titus,  and  his  own  prompt  and  effectual  resistance 

1  This  account  by  Paul,  and  the  narrative  in  the  xvth  of  Acts, 
supplement  each  other.  The  latter  relates  to  the  public  transaction, 
including  the  decision  which  was  reached ;  the  former,  as  above 
stated,  refers  to  a  conference  of  a  more  private  nature.  But  the 
phraseology  in  Gal.  ii.  2  implies  that  there  was  a  public  conference 
also.  See  Ellicott  and  Meyer  on  the  passage. 


BAUlt’s  THEORY.  233 

to  their  endeavor.  The  “  false  brethren  ”  are  Judaiz- 
ing  reactionists  having  no  right  in  the  Christian 
brotherhood,  but  having  crept  in,  as  it  were — intrud¬ 
ed  where  they  do  n?t  belong.  They  made  it  their 
business  “  to  spy  out  the  liberty  ”  of  the  Gentile 
converts ;  that  is,  they  watched  with  an  inimical 
intent,  designing  to  bring  these  converts  to  accept  the 
yoke  of  the  Mosaic  law.  Here  the  difference  between 
such  false  brethren  and  the  apostles  is  palpable. 
Would  Paul  have  undertaken  to  explain  his  gospel  to 
these  “  false  brethren,”  lest  he  should  run  in  vain  ? 
Rather  would  he,  as  he  did,  sternly  resist  them.  But 
the  refusal  of  Paul  to  circumcise  Titus  is  used  as  an 
argument  to  disprove  the  historical  truth  of  the  cir¬ 
cumcision  of  Timothy.  It  is  said  that  Paul  would 
not  have  done  at  one  time  what  he  absolutelv  refused 
to  do  at  another.  But  why  did  he  refuse  to  circum¬ 
cise  Titus  ?  Pirst,  because  he  was  a  heathen  by  birth, 
and  secondly,  because  his  circumcision  was  demanded 
on  doctrinal  grounds,  so  that  to  yield  would  have 
been  to  give  up  at  once  the  rights  of  the  Gentiles  and 
justification  by  faith.  But  Timothy  was  the  son  of 
a  Jewish  mother,  and  he  was  circumcised  for  a  totally 
different  reason  from  that  for  which  the  circumcision 
of  Titus  was  demanded.  Timothy  was  circumcised 
out  of  respect  to  unconverted  Jews,  not  converted 
Judaizers.  His  circumcision  neither  imperilled  the 
rights  of  the  Gentiles,  nor  clashed  with  the  doctrine 
of  Justification.  In  this  act,  Paul  simply  made  him- 


234 


PARTIES  IN  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH. 


self  “  a  Jew  unto  the  Jew,”  on  his  maxim  of  making 
himself  all  things  to  all  men — so  far  as  no  principle 
was  violated.1  There  is,  then,  no  inconsistency  such  as 
is  charged  by  the  Tubingen  critics.  The  circumcision 
of  Timothy  as  truly  accords  with  the  principles  of 
Paul,  as  the  circumcision  of  Titus  would  have  con¬ 
tradicted  them.  Having  mentioned  the  circumstances 
concerning  Titus,  Paul  now  returns  to  his  conference 
with  the  apostles:  “But  of  those” — from  those — • 
“who  seemed  to  be  somewhat,” — that  is,  were  re¬ 
garded  with  most  respect — here  Paul  breaks  off  the 
sentence  by  throwing  in  this  parenthetical  remark  : 
“  whatsoever  they  were,  it  maketh  no  matter  to  me , 
God  accepteth  no  man’s  person  ;  ”  and  then  he  adds  : 
“  for  they  who  seemed  to  be  somewhat,  in  conference 
added  nothing  to  me.”  The  mode  of  characterizing 
the  apostles  as  “  those  who  seem  to  be  somewhat,” 
is  misinterpreted  when  it  is  supposed  to  contain  a 
tinge  of  irony.  Nothing  of  that  sort  belongs  to  the 
phraseology.  It  is  the  equivalent  of  the  earlier  ex¬ 
pression — “them  which  were  of  reputation.”  And 
as  to  the  parenthetical  clause,  it  must  be  remembered 
that  Paul’s  enemies  were  endeavoring  to  disprove  his 
claim  to  be  an  apostle,  and  to  represent  that  the 
older  apostles  were  possessed  of  superior  authority. 
His  purpose  is  to  express,  as  against  this  disparage¬ 
ment,  his  consciousness  of  a  perfect  equality  in  respect 
to  rights  and  claims,  with  the  other  apostles.  And 

1  1  Cor.  ix.  20  seq. 


baur’s  theory.  235 

having  been  led  to  allude  to  the  high  estimation  in 
which  they  stood,  he  adds  a  cautionary  explanation 
which  would  exclude  the  inference  that  he  considered 
himself  in  any  degree  subordinate  to  them.  “  What¬ 
ever  they  were — however  high  may  be  the  standing 
of  men,  God  is  not  thereby  rendered  partial  towards 
them.”  The  last  clause  in  the  quotation  above,  is, 
however,  the  most  important.  Paul  says  of  the 
apostles,  that  in  conference  they  added  nothing — • 
ovSsv  nQ 06 a vsz) t vto — to  him.  He  had  shortly  before 
said  that  on  his  arrival  in  Jerusalem  lie  “  communica¬ 
ted” — dvtdfirjv  is  the  word — -to  the  apostles  the 
gospel  he  had  preached.  And  now  he  says  that  they 
— oudcv  7CQ00avtx)'tvT0 — had  nothing  to  add  to  that 
gospel  by  way  of  correction  or  supplement.  They  had 
no  fault  to  find  with  it,  no  new  principles  to  suggest ; 
“  bat  contrariwise  ”  they — what  ?  for  everything  turns 
on  the  statement  that  is  to  follow — “  they  gave  to  me 
and  Barnabas  the  right  hands  of  fellowship.”  Seeing 
that  Paul  had  been  successful  in  converting  the 
Gentiles  as  Peter  had  been  successful  in  converting 
the  Jews,  and  heeding  this  instruction  of  Providence ; 
seeing,  moreover,  the  “  grace  that  was  given  ”  to  Paul, 
the  other  apostles — who  seemed  to  be  pillars,  or, 
rather,  were  esteemed  as  the  leaders  and  supporters, 
of  the  Jerusalem  church — Peter,  James,  and  John, 
gave  the  hand  of  fraternity  and  fellowship,  it  being 
understood  that  in  accordance  with  the  plain  sugges¬ 
tions  of  Providence,  Paul  and  Barnabas  should  labor 


f 


236  PARTIES  IN  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH. 

in  heathen  countries,  whilst  the  other  apostles  should 
“  go  unto  the  circumcision/’  These  statements,  in¬ 
stead  of  supporting,  utterly  demolish  Baur’s  theory. 
To  say  as  he  does,  in  effect,  that  this  union  was  on 
the  outside — was,  in  fact,  a  peaceable  division  and 
schism  in  the  church,  in  which  those  who  affirmed  the 
necessity  of  circumcision  and  those  who  denied  it, 
being  unable  to  walk  together,  concluded  to  divide 
without  an  open  quarrel,  is  to  offer  as  gross  a  mis¬ 
interpretation  of  a  Scriptural  passage  as  can  well  be 
conceived.  The  Apostle  Paul  expressly  says  that  the 
other  apostles  had  nothing  to  add  to  the  principles 
which  governed  him  in  his  preaching.  He  implies, 
and  intends  to  convey  the  idea,  that  Peter,  James, 
and  John,  were  satisfied  with  the  gospel  which  he 
preached.  The  imputation  that  Paul  gave  the  right 
hand  of  fellowship  to  those  who  maintained,  to  use  his 
own  language,  “  another  gospel,”  when  neither  he 
nor  they  felt  that  they  were  brethren,  holding  a  com¬ 
mon  faith  and  engaged  in  a  common  work,  is  wholly 
inconsistent  with  his  known  character,  and  would 
reflect  upon  him  and  them  the  deepest  dishonor.  That 
the  fellowship  was  cordially  meant  is  proved  in  a 
manner  which  no  audacity  of  denial  can  gainsay,  by 
the  reasons  which  Paul  assigns  for  the  act, — the 
perception,  namely,  that  a  great  work  of  God  had 
been  done  among  the  Gentiles,  and  that  Paul  was 
himself  endued  with  heavenly  grace  for  the  work  of 
an  apostle.  The  same  thing  is  rendered  still  more 


Paul’s  rebuke  of  peter.  237 

evident  by  the  circumstance  that  the  Jerusalem  apos¬ 
tles  requested  Paul  and  Barnabas  to  remember  the 
poor  at  Jerusalem  and  collect  for  them  contributions — 
to  which  request  they  willingly  agreed.  Of  the  zeal 
with  which  Paul  addressed  himself  to  this  work  of 
charity  and  fellowship,  we  have  abundant  evidence.1 
Did  Peter,  James,  and  John,  seek  for  the  money  of 
heretics  and  heretical  teachers  ?  Did  Paul  and  Barna¬ 
bas  labor  to  minister  to  the  wants  of  Judaizers — 
“dogs,”  as  Paul  plainly  calls  them  in  the  Epistle  to 
the  Philippians?  No!  the  fellowship  of  the  Jewish 
and  Gentile  teachers  was  genuine  and  cordial :  and 
so  the  underpinning  of  the  whole  Tubingen  theory  falls 
away. 

It  would  argue,  however,  not  only  an  ignorance 
of  the  subsequent  history,  but  also  an  ignorance  of 
human  nature,  to  suppose  that  this  friendly  and 
fraternal  interview  and  the  decisions  of  the  apostolic 
convention  would  avail  either  to  define,  in  all  points, 
the  relation  of  the  two  branches  of  the  church,  or  to 
suppress  permanently  the  judaizing  faction.  That 

1  It  had  been  a  custom  of  the  Jews  scattered  in  foreign  lands  to 
send  up  gifts  to  the  capital,  expressing  thus  their  sense  of  the  pre¬ 
eminence  of  the  Judaean  church  gathered  about  the  centre  of  their 
religion.  Ewald  associates  this  old  custom  with  the  record  of  the 
repeated  contributions  sent  from  the  Gentile  churches  to  the  mother- 
church  at  Jerusalem.  These  were,  to  be  sure,  only  voluntary  tokens 
of  love.  Yet  the  Jewish  Christian  would  naturally  be  reminded 
of  the  old  custom  we  have  mentioned.  Hence  the  fact  of  the  send¬ 
ing  of  these  contributions  would  be  a  peculiar  sign  of  respect  as  well 
as  fellowship.  See  Ewald’s  Geschiclite ,  &c.,  B.  YI.  s.  438. 


238 


PARTIES  IN  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH. 


this  faction  was  still  alive  and  influential,  was  shown 
by  the  transactions  at  Antioch  which  Paul  proceeds 
to  explain.  Peter  had  not  hesitated  to  eat  with  the 
Gentile  converts  there ;  to  break  over  thus  the  restric¬ 
tion  which  the  Jew  placed  upon  himself,  as  to  inter¬ 
course  with  the  heathen.1  But  on  the  arrival  of 
certain  Jewish  Christians  from  Jerusalem,  he  changed 
his  course  and  withdrew  from  them  ;  the  other  Jewish 
converts  and  even  Barnabas  following  his  example.2 
This  conduct  of  Peter  roused  the  indignation  and  call¬ 
ed  forth  the  plain  and  earnest  rebuke  of  Paul.  In 
mingling  freely  with  the  Gentile  Christians,  Peter 
acted  in  keeping  with  the  liberal  views  which  he  had 
acquired  in  connection  with  the  conversion  of  Corne¬ 
lius  and  had  expressed  at  the  apostolic  convention. 
This  convention  had  not  defined  what  course  the 
Jewish  Christians  were  to  take  on  the  point  in  ques¬ 
tion.  We  cannot  say,  therefore,  that  Peter,  in  case 
he  had  abstained  from  eating  with  the  Gentiles,  would 
have  violated  the  terms  of  that  arrangement.  It  is 
not  remarkable  that  in  the  conference  at  Jerusalem 

1  See  Luke  xv.  2  ;  1  Cor.  v.  11. 

1  • 

These  Christians  from  Jerusalem  are  said  (ver.  12)  to  have  come 
and  'laKcofiov — that  is,  to  have  been  sent  by  James.  The  business  on 
which  they  were  sent,  we  know  not,  just  as  we  know  not  the  partic¬ 
ular  object  of  Peter’s  visit.  There  is  no  intimation  that  James  had 
given  any  sanction  to  the  course  which  they  chose  to  take  with 
respect  to  the  Gentile  believers.  To  suppose  that  he  had,  would  be 
as  unwarrantable  as  to  infer,  from  the  course  which  Peter  had  first 
taken,  that  he  had  been  sent,  or  had  come,  expressly  to  eat  with  the 
Gentiles  and  live  as  one  of  them. 


Paul’s  rebuke  oe  peter. 


239 


this  particular  question  was  not  settled  or  considered ; 
and  although  this  freedom  of  intercourse  which  swept 
down  all  the  old  barriers  between  Jew  and  heathen 
might  be  a  logical  deduction  from  the  spirit  of  that 
agreement,  it  is  not  remarkable  that  Jewish  believers 
• — even  those  of  a  liberal  turn  and  in  favor  of  the 
fellowship  concluded  upon  at  the  convention — should 
fail  to  perceive  at  once  the  propriety  of  such  a  prac¬ 
tice.  Peculiar  embarrassments,  as  we  shall  hereafter 
more  fully  point  out,  lay  in  the  way  of  such  a  conces¬ 
sion.  We  must  not  forget  the  force  of  a  life-long, 
hereditary  prejudice  which  is  intrenched  among  relig¬ 
ious  beliefs.  Simple  abstinence  from  this  kind  of 
fellowship  with  the  Gentile  Christians  could  not, 
therefore,  be  regarded  as  an  absolute  breach  of  the 
covenant  which  secured  to  them  their  rights  and  the 
recognition  of  their  Christian  standing.  There  were 
still  two  branches  of  the  church.  But  the  offence 
which  Paul  charged  upon  Peter  was  threefold.  He 
was  guilty  of  an  inconsistency  in  departing  from  the 
course  which  he  had  pursued  before  the  arrival  of 
the  Jewish  Christians  ;  of  hypocrisy,  since  in  thus 
altering  his  conduct,  he  acted  against  his  real  convic¬ 
tions  and  from  fear;  and  of  the  virtual  attempt  to 
lead  the  Gentile  converts  to  judaize,  or  to  make  them 
feel  that  they  ought  to  be  circumcised.  Peter  was  not 
accused  of  an  error  of  doctrine,  but  of  an  error  in 
conduct.  He  behaved  in  a  manner  inconsistent  with 
his  real  views,  just  as  Barnabas  did,  and  there  is  just 


240 


PARTIES  IN  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH. 


v 


as  little  ground  for  imputing  to  Peter  a  judaizing 
principle  on  account  of  his  conduct  on  this  occasion, 
as  there  is  for  imputing  the  same  principle  to  Barna¬ 
bas.  Peter  acted  from  the  same  cowardly  feeling 
which  had  once  moved  him  to  deny  his  Master.  If 
Paul  had  complained  that  Peter  held  a  false  principle, 
that  he  did  not  understand  the  rights  of  the  Gentiles, 
this  controversy  might  be  urged  in  support  of  Baur’s 
theory.  But  inasmuch  as  the  censure  of  Paul  pre¬ 
supposes  an  essential  agreement  between  himself  and 
Peter  in  their  views  upon  the  matter  in  question, 
Baur’s  theory  not  only  gains  no  foothold,  but  is  effec¬ 
tually  overthrown  by  the  record  of  this  conflict.  We 
simply  add  that  Paul’s  reasoning  on  this  occasion  is 
a  most  forcible  exposition  of  the  principal  ground  of 
his  unflinching  opposition  to  the  laying  of  the  cere¬ 
monial  law  upon  the  Gentiles.  Such  an  act  would 
derogate  from  the  sufficiency  of  Christ  as  a  Saviour, 
and  imply  that  when  a  man  believed  on  him,  he  had 
not  secured  his  salvation,  but  was  still  in  his  sins. 
“  If  righteousness  come  by  the  law,  then  Christ  is 
dead  in  vain.”  1 

The  continuance  of  a  judaizing  party  after  all 
these  events,  and  notwithstanding  the  fellowship 
between  the  apostle  to  the  heathen  and  “the  pillars  ” 
at  Jerusalem,  is  not  to  us  a  cause  of  wonder.  Re¬ 
member  how  ingrained  was  the  prejudice  that  must 
be  removed  before  the  requirement  of  circumcision 

1  Gal.  ii.  1G-21. 


241 


REFUTATION  OF  BAUR. 

could  be  dispensed  with !  And  how  inveterate  was 
the  obstinacy  of  the  pharisaical  Jew,  who  had  been  so 
trained  as  hardly  to  distinguish  between  the  moral 
and  ceremonial  precept,  in  respect  either  to  sacredness 
or  perpetuity,  and  who  had  accepted  the  Messiah, 
having  no  thought  that  the  law  or  any  portion  of  it 
was  to  pass  away  !  And  the  rapid  spread  of  Gentile 
Christianity,  a  fact  which  threatened  to  reduce 
ultimately  the  party  of  the  ritual  to  a  hopeless  minori¬ 
ty,  would  naturally  rouse  them  to  adhere  more 
zealously  to  their  position,  and  to  put  forth  fresh 
efforts  to  obtain  for  it  a  triumph. 

The  objections  of  Baur  to  the  narrative  of  Luke 
disappear  in  the  light  of  the  preceding  review.  As 
to  Peter,  the  fellowship  he  extended  to  Paul  (Gal.  ii. 
9),  and  his  liberality  in  reference  to  the  Gentile  Chris¬ 
tians  at  Antioch — -with  the  exception  of  the  temporary 
infidelity  to  his  real  convictions — were  the  proper 
sequel  of  his  vision  in  the  case  of  Cornelius.  There 
is  nothing  in  Peter’s  course,  which  throws  the  least 
doubt  upon  the  record  of  that  event.  We  must  sup¬ 
pose,  indeed,  that  in  the  interval  of  about  fifteen  years, 
between  the  affair  of  Cornelius  and  the  apostolic 
convention,  the  judaizing  spirit  had  grown  stronger, 
rather  than  weaker,  in  the  Jerusalem  church.  This 
was  natural.  Pharisees  (Acts  xv.  5)  had  become 
convinced  of  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus,  and  had 
brought  into  the  church  their  zeal  in  behalf  of  a  strict 


16 


242 


PARTIES  IN  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH. 


adherence  to  the  Mosaic  ritual.  And  we  have  only 
to  imagine  the  situation  of  that  church,  to  perceive 

■f 

the  difficulties  that  beset  this  whole  subject.  The 
Jewish  Christians  themselves  kept  up  the  observance 
of  the  old  forms.  They  frequented  the  temple,  like 
other  devout  Israelites.  That  they  should  give  up  the 
ceremonial  law  had  not  been  claimed  or  suggested. 
As  patriotic  Jews,  they  could  not  break  away  from 
the  national  customs.  But  a  religious  motive  bound 
them  to  the  old  observances  until  these  should  be 
repealed,  or  until  they  should  discern  that  the  gospel 
had  virtually  supplanted  them.  Luther’s  doctrine 
of  justification  carried  with  it  logically  the  abolition 
of  a  great  part  of  the  existing  ritual  of  the  church. 
But  it  was  only  by  degrees  that  the  Wittenberg 
reformers  felt  the  incongruity,  and  shook  themselves 
clear,  so  to  speak,  of  forms  whose  vitality  was  gone. 
And  yet  these  forms  were  of  merely  human  institution. 
But  if  the  Jewish  Christians  would  observe  the  law, 
how  could  they  break  over  it  in  their  intercourse  with 
the  Gentiles  ?  How  should  they  adjust  their  relations 
to  the  heathen  converts  ?  The  state  of  things,  as  we 
gather  it  from  Luke,  is  just  what  we  should  expect  to 
result  from  this  anomalous  situation.  On  the  one 
hand,  there  is  rejoicing  in  the  mother-church  at  the 
conversion  of  the  Gentiles.  It  is  seen  that  they  have 
become  recipients  of  the  Spirit.  There  is  a  thankful 
acknowledgment  of  them  as  fellow-believers.  Yet 
the  question  of  freely  mingling  with  them — of  treating 


REFUTATION  OF  BAUR. 


243 


them  in  all  respects  as  Jewish  brethren  were  treated — 
was  encumbered  •  with  the  difficulties  we  have  men¬ 
tioned.  A  bigoted  but  influential  faction  strenuously 
contended  against  the  lawfulness  of  eating  with 
heathen  converts,  and  sought  to  impose  on  them 
circumcision  and  the  other  points  of  the  ritual.  The 
apostles,  and  the  church  acting  as  a  body,  refused 
this  last  demand,  and  shook  hands  with  Paul,  the 
determined  defender  of  the  rights  of  the  Gentiles. 
Peter,  enlightened  by  the  teaching  of  the  Spirit,  could 
not  refuse  to  eat  with  his  Gentile  brethren ;  yet 
yielded  for  a  time  at  Antioch  to  the  pressure  of 
judaizing  opinion.  The  affair  of  Cornelius,  if  it 
excited  discontent  at  Jerusalem,  and  had  no  perma¬ 
nent  effect  on  the  judaizing  element  which  rather 
grew  than  declined  in  strength,  left  a  lasting  impres¬ 
sion  on  his  mind,  and  led  him  at  the  apostolic  con¬ 
vention  to  take  the  side  of  the  Gentiles.1 

It  is  easy  to  understand,  we  observe  further,  how 
there  might  be  many  who  had  no  sympathy  with  the 
Judaizers  in  their  requirement  that  the  heathen  con¬ 
vert  should  be  circumcised,  but  were  still  unprepared 
for  that  degree  of  liberality  in  intercourse  with  their 
Gentile  brethren  which  Peter  had  exhibited  at 

1  For  good  remarks  on  the  topics  touched  upon  in  the  paragraph 
above,  see  Ewald’s  Ges.  d.  Yolkes  Israel ,  B.  vi.  s.  226  seq.,  426  seq. 
We  may  add  that  the  narrative  of  the  conversion  of  Cornelius  in  the 
Acts  is  full  of  graphic  details.  Persons,  places,  and  times,  are 
exactly  designated.  If  it  he  a  fiction,  it  is  an  example  of  the  “  lie 
circumstantial.” 


244 


PARTIES  IN  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH. 


Antioch.  We  have  among  us  a  numerous  and  re¬ 
spectable  body  of  Christians — a  friend  has  suggested 
the  illustration — who  believe  that  baptism  is  an  essen¬ 
tial  prerequisite  of  communion,  and  that  immersion 
alone  is  baptism ;  who,  therefore,  decline  to  sit  at  the 
Lord’s  table  with  those  whom  they  cordially  love  as 
fellow-Christians,  and  whose  labors  in  spreading  the 
gospel  they  look  upon  with  heartfelt  sympathy.  The 
Baptist  does  not  deny  the  name  of  Christian  brother 
to  those  from  whom  he  is  obliged  to  withhold  certain 
forms  of  fellowship.  So  it  was,  we  doubt  not,  with 
many  Jewish  Christians.1 

As  concerns  Paul,  the  narrative  of  Luke  is  equally 
relieved  of  difficulties.  That  Paul,  in  Galatians  ii., 
does  not  mention  the  public  conference,  which  Luke 
describes,  is  easily  explained.  It  was  no  part  of  his 
purpose  to  give  a  complete  history  of  the  proceedings 
at  Jerusalem.  The  particular  point  to  which  his 
mind  was  directed,  was  his  relation  to  the  other  apos¬ 
tles.  Had  the  public  transaction  modified,  in  any 
essential  particular,  the  result  of  his  private  interview 
with  them,  he  might  have  been  called  upon  to  speak 
of  it.  Such,  however,  was  not  the  fact.  He  could 
conscientiously  say  that  nothing  was  added — ovSiv 
TTQooavtO'tvTO — to  his  gospel.  The  conclusions  of 
the  convention,  founded  as  they  were  on  a  desire  to 

1  It  hardly  need  be  said  that  we  imply  here  no  judgment  as  to 
the  justice  or  injustice  of  the  position  which  the  Baptist  takes.  The 
illustration  is  pertinent,  whether  he  he  right  or  wrong. 


REFUTATION  OF  BAUR. 


245 


put  no  needless  obstruction  in  the  way  of  the  spread 
of  the  gospel  among  the  Jews,  and  accompanied  by 
an  express  acknowledgment  of  the  rightful  exemption 
of  the  Gentiles  from  the  yoke  of  the  law,  were  fully 
consistent  with  Paul’s  position.  But  if  Paul  was  not 
called  upon  to  allude,  in  Gal.  ii.,  to  the  public  pro¬ 
ceeding  on  the  occasion  of  his  visit  to  Jerusalem,  the 
purpose  he  had  in  view  rendered  it  inappropriate  that 
he  should  do  so.  His  immediate  purpose  was  to 
guard  against  the  impression  that  he  stood,  in  any 
sense,  in  a  subordinate  position  with  reference  to  the 
other  apostles.  An  allusion  to  the  arrangement  of 
the  convention  misdit  have  furnished  his  enemies  with 

O 

a  pretext  for  the  unfounded  charge  of  a  dependence 
on  his  part  upon  “  the  pillars  ”  at  Jerusalem. 

It  is  objected  to  Luke’s  narrative  of  the  conven¬ 
tion,  that  the  decision  which  is  said  to  have  been 
made  there  would  infallibly  have  been  referred  to  by 
Paul  in  1  Cor.  viii.,  where  the  matter  of  eating  flesh 
offered  to  idols  is  considered.  In  answer  to  this 
objection,  we  remark  that  the  apostle  in  this  passage 
docs  oppose  the  practice  referred  to,  and  on  the  same 
general  ground  as  that  assigned  in  the  Jerusalem 
letter;  namely,  a  regard  for  those  who  thought  the 
practice  wrong  (comp.  Acts  xv.  21  and  1  Cor.  viii. 
9  seq.).  His  aim  was  to  instil  a  right  feeling  into 
the  minds  of  the  Corinthians,  and  to  inculcate  a 
principle  on  which  they  could  act  intelligently.  An 
appeal  to  authority — or  what  would  be  taken  for 


246 


PARTIES  IN  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH. 


authority — would  have  defeated  this  design.  Besides, 
it  was  not  the  danger  of  giving  needless  offence  to 
the  Jews,  but  it  was  the  consciences  of  weak  Gentile 
brethren  which  Paul  had  to  consider.  Moreover,  the 
arrangement  at  the  conference  applied  to  the  churches 
of  Syria  and  Cilicia,  in  particular  to  Antioch  and  to 
the  dissension  that  had  broken  out  there.  After 
Gentile  Christianity  had  become  widely  prevalent, 
after  Paul  had  fully  entered,  as  an  independent 
laborer,  into  his  own  peculiar  field,  and  when,  espe¬ 
cially,  the  Jewish  Christians  (of  the  Judaizing  type) 
kept  up  their  mischievous  efforts  to  deprive  the 
Gentiles  of  their  liberty,  it  may  well  be  assumed  that 
the  arrangement  in  question,  based,  as  it  was,  on  a 
prudential  consideration,  had  become  obsolete.  It 
had  been  made  to  meet  an  emergency.  When  Paul 
had  founded  numerous  churches,  and  churches,  too, 
made  up  chiefly  of  Gentile  converts,  that  recommen¬ 
dation,  adopted  for  the  sake  of  sparing  the  feelings 
of  the  Jews  and  of  preventing  the  inference  that  the 
Gentiles  were  enemies  of  the  Old  Testament  religion, 
would  cease  to  have  any  validity.  It  had  no  resem¬ 
blance  to  the  decree  of  a  later  council.  It  was  a 
fraternal  recommendation  sent  to  Antioch,  through 
Silas  and  Judas  Barsabas  (Acts  xv.  22),  the  substance 
of  it  being  also  put  into  a  letter  which  they  carried. 
There  was  not  a  judicial  proceeding,  but  a  consulta¬ 
tion  of  brethren.1  They  did  not  come  together  to 

1  See,  on  this  subject,  Neander’s  Pflanz.  v.  Leit.  d.  Kirche ,  B.  I., 


GENUINENESS  OE  THE  ACTS. 


247 


give  law  to  the  Church,  but  to  quiet  a  particular 
disturbance. 

We  are  now  prepared  to  consider  the  question  of 
the  genuineness  of  the  Acts.  If  we  have  shown  that 
the  representation  which  is  there  given  of  the  respec¬ 
tive  positions  of  Paul  and  Peter,  and  of  the  mutual 
relations  of  the  Jewish  and  Gentile  Christians,  is  not 
discordant  either  with  the  statements  of  Paul  or  with 
the  probabilities  in  the  case,  we  have  destroyed  the 
sole  argument  of  any  weight  against  the  genuineness 
of  the  book.  Por  on  this  imaginary  discordance  the 
objection  to  the  early  composition  of  the  Acts  is 
founded.  But,  in  our  judgment,  the  genuineness  of 
this  book  can  be  fully  established,  and  the  attack 
which  has  been  made  upon  it  shown  to  be  groundless. 

1.  The  testimony  of  the  author,  direct  and  inci¬ 
dental,  when  we  consider  the  form  in  which  it  is 
given,  is  a  strong  proof  of  the  genuineness  of  the 
book,  and  in  the  absence  of  counteracting  evidence, 
a  convincing  proof. 

We  assume,  what  is  now  a  conceded  fact,  that 
the  third  Gospel  and  the  Acts  have  the  same  author. 
Independently  of  the  evidence  afforded  by  the  preface 
to  the  Acts,  $ie  resemblance  of  the  two  books  in 
language  and  style  is  conclusive.  Now  the  third 
Gospel  purports  to  be  written  by  one  personally 

s.  422  seq.,  Lekebusch,  s.  314  seq.,  Bleek’s  Einl.  in  cl.  W.  T 1,  s.  371 
seq.,  Merer,  Gal.  Einl.  §  3,  Apostelgeschichte ,  s.  280. 


248 


PARTIES  IN  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH. 


acquainted  with  the  apostles.  He  records  what  he 
had  received  from  “  eyewitnesses  and  ministers  of  the 
word  ”  (Luke  i.  2).  The  Acts,  addressed  to  the  same 
Theophilus,  and  referring  in  its  preface  back  to  the 
Gospel,  is  the  sequel  of  the  latter  work.  The  author 
of  the  Acts,  therefore,  claims  to  be  an  acquaintance 
of  the  apostles.  And  we  may  observe — though  the 
remark  might  properly  be  made  a  special  topic  of 
evidence — that,  since  all  the  proof  of  the  early  date 
of  the  Gospel  tends  equally  to  establish  the  early  date 
of  the  Acts,  and  since  we  have  internal  proof  that  the 
Gospel  was  written  not  later  than  about  the  date  of 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  the  genuineness  of  the 
Acts  is  a  necessary  inference.  Proving  that  Luke 
wrote  the  Gospel,  we  have  proved  that  he  wrote  the 
Acts  also.  And  the  phraseology  in  the  prologue  of  the 
Gospel  obliges  us  to  suppose  either  that  the  writer 
is  a  conscientious  and  well-informed  historian,  or  con¬ 
sciously  and  basely  false.  He  declares  that  he  writes 
in  order  that  Theophilus  may  be  assured  of  the  certain¬ 
ty,  the  unassailable  reality — tt]v  dacpokuav- — of  the 
truths  of  Christianity  in  which  he  had  been  instructed. 
But  not  to  dwell  on  the  connection  of  the  Gospel  with 
the  Acts,  and  considering  this  last  book  by  itself,  we 
are  happily  provided  with  an  incidental  testimony 
of  the  most  convincing  character.  We  allude  to  the 
passages  in  which  the  writer  speaks  in  the  first  person 
plural,  thus  including  himself  among  the  participants 
in  the  events  he  records.  This  use  of  the  “we"' 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  ACTS. 


249 


begins  with  Paul’s  leaving  Troas  (xvi.  11),  and  con¬ 
tinues  in  the  account  of  his  stay  at  Philippi.  It  is 
resumed  on  the  return  of  Paul  to  Philippi  (xx.  5-15) 
— thus  raising  the  presumption  that  the  author  of 
these  passages  had  in  the  interval  tarried  at  that 
place.  The  remaining  passages  in  which  this  pecu¬ 
liarity  appears,  are  xxi.  1-18,  xxvii.  1 — xxviii.  17. 
Now,  what  is  the  explanation  of  this  phenomenon? 
Only  two  hypotheses  are  open  to  discussion  among 
those  who  ascribe  the  book  to  Luke.  The  first  is  the 
old,  generally  received,  and,  as  we  think,  well  sus¬ 
tained  view  that  Luke  was  himself,  in  these  places, 
the  attendant  of  Paul.  The  second  is  the  hypothesis 
of  Schleiermacher,  variously  modified  by  other  writers, 
that  Luke  here  introduces,  without  formal  notice, 
a  document  emanating,  as  they  commonly  suppose, 
from  Timothy,  or,  as  some  have  thought,  from  Silas. 
This  last  form  of  the  hypothesis,  that  Silas  wrote  the 
passages  in  question,  is  supported  by  no  argument 
worthy  of  attention,  and  is  fully  refuted  by  the  cir¬ 
cumstance  that  in  connection  with  at  least  one  of  the 
passages  (see  Acts  xvi.  19-25),  Silas  is  mentioned  in 
the  third  person.  But  the  theory  that  Timothy  is  the 
author  of  these  passages,  though  adopted  by  so  able 
and  candid  a  writer  as  Bleek,  has  been,  as  we  believe, 
effectually  disproved.1  This  theory  does  not,  to  be 

1  The  examination  of  the  “Timothy-hypothesis”  by  Lekebusch 
(s.  140-167),  is  one  of  the  finest  parts  of  his  excellent  treatise.  We 
present  the  more  prominent  considerations  bearing  on  the  topic. 


250  PARTIES  IN  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH. 

sure,  shake  the  general  credibility  of  the  book,  or  the 
fact  of  its  being  composed  by  Luke.  But  how  stands 
the  evidence  in  regard  to  it  ?  We  read  (in  Acts  xx. 
4,  5) :  “  And  there  accompanied  him  [Paul]  into 
Asia,  Sopater  of  Berea;  and  of  the  Thessalonians, 
Aristarchus  and  Secundus ;  and  Gaius  of  Derby, 
and  Timotheus ;  and  of  Asia,  Tychicus  and  Trophimus. 
These  going  before  tarried  for  us  at  Troas.”  If,  under 
the  term  “these/'  all  who  are  named  before  are 
referred  to- — which  is  the  most  natural  interpretation1 
— the  so-called  Timothy -hypothesis  falls  to  the  ground. 
In  connection  with  this  piece  of  evidence,  it  deserves 
remark  that  the  absence  of  all  detail — the  summary 
style  of  the  narrative — in  passages  directly  connected 
with  those  under  consideration,  and  covering  a  portion 
of  Paul's  career  in  which  Timothy  bore  an  equal  part, 
is  against  the  supposition  that  Luke  had  at  his  com¬ 
mand  a  diary  of  this  apostolic  helper.  But  the 
decisive  argument  against  the  Schleiermacherian  hypo¬ 
thesis,  is  the  wrong  view  of  the  general  structure  and 
character  of  the  book  which  that  theory  implies. 
Were  it  true  that  the  book  presents  the  appearance 
of  being  a  compilation  of  documents  imperfectly  fused 
together — left  in  a  good  degree  in  their  original  state 
— it  might  not  unreasonably  be  assumed  that  the 
author  had  taken  up  a  document  from  another’s  pen, 
without  taking  care  to  alter  the  pronominal  feature 
which  we  are  discussing.  This  idea  of  the  book  was 

See  Meyer,  acl  loc. 


GENUINENESS  OE  THE  ACTS. 


251 


a  part  of  Schleiermacher’s  theory.  But  a  more 
thorough  examination  of  the  Acts  has  made  it  clear 
that,  from  -whatever  sources  the  author  draws  his 
information,  it  is  one  production,  coherent  in  plan ; 
its  different  parts  connected  by  references  forward  and 
backward ;  uniform  in  style ;  and  flowing  from  a 
single  pen.  If  Luke  took  up  into  his  work  a  docu¬ 
ment  of  Timothy,  he  could  not  have  given  it  the  com¬ 
plete  harmony  with  his  own  style  which  it  exhibits, 
without  changing  its  form  and  phraseology  to  such  cm 
extent  as  renders  it  impossible  to  suppose  the  retention 
of  the  “  we  ”  to  he  artless  or  accidental.  Memoranda 
of  Timothy,  if  Luke  had  such,  were  rewritten  hy  him ; 
but  this  leaves  the  retaining  of  the  “  we,”  with  no 
explanation,  an  insoluble  fact.  We  infer,  then,  with 
confidence,  that  Luke,  in  these  passages,  professes  to 
speak  in  his  own  person.1  This  fact  Zeller  and  the 
other  Tubingen  critics  admit ;  and  their  conclusion  is, 
that  whilst  the  author  of  the  Acts,  writing  in  the 
second  century,  used  a  previously  written  document, 
he  intentionally  left  the  “  we  ”  as  it  stood — although 
the  document  in  other  parts  was  materially  wrought 


1  There  remains,  to  be  sure,  the  unanswered  question,  why  Luke 
does  not  more  expressly  state  the  fact  of  his  joining  Paul,  but  leaves 
it  to  be  gathered  from  this  use  of  the  pronoun.  But  this  difficulty 
is,  to  say  the  least,  not  greater  than  the  difficulty  of  supposing  him 
to  introduce  a  document  of  this  sort  without  notice  and  without 
altering  the  pronominal  form.  The  book  was  written  for  a  private 
individual.  Of  the  circumstances  of  Luke’s  companionship  with 
Paul,  Theophilus  may  have  known  something  before. 


252 


PARTIES  IN  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH. 


over  by  him — in  order  to  produce  the  false  impression 
that  he  was  the  contemporary  and  associate  of  Paul ! 
This  refined  fraud  is  attributed,  and  it  is  thought 
necessary  to  attribute,  to  the  author  of  the  Acts  !  But 
if  we  are  not  prepared  to  adopt  this  theory,  we  have 
no  alternative  but  to  accept  the  testimony  of  the 
author  concerning  himself ;  that  is,  to  ascribe  his  work 
to  a  contemporary  and  companion  of  the  apostles. 

2.  The  assumption  that  the  book  of  Acts  is  spu¬ 
rious,  and  its  contents  in  great  part  fictitious,  is  irre¬ 
concilable  with  the  moral  spirit  that  characterizes  the 
work.  The  presumption  adverse  to  Baur’s  theory, 
which  is  raised  by  the  author’s  own  testimony  re¬ 
specting  himself,  is  confirmed  by  the  moral  tone  of 
the  book.  It  is  true  that  every  well-meaning  book 
is  not  thereby  proved  to  come  from  the  writer  from 
whom  it  pretends  to  emanate.  Nor  would  we  contend 
that  the  ideas  of  antiquity,  and  of  Jewish  antiquity  in 
particular,  in  regard  to  this  matter  of  authorship 
accorded  in  all  respects  with  the  ethical  feeling  of  a 
modern  clay.1  Apocryphal  and  other  ancient  works 
are  extant,  which  bore  the  name  of  some  revered 
person  of  an  earlier  time,  and  which,  notwithstanding 
this  groundless  pretension,  were  designed  to  promote 
the  cause  of  religion.  But  an  elaborate  outlay  of 
cunning  for  the  purpose  of  creating  a  false  impression 
in  respect  to  the  real  author  of  a  book,  especially 
when  the  motive  is  to  promote  the  interests  of  a  party, 

1  This  Lekebusch  frankly  allows. 


GENUINENESS  OE  THE  ACTS. 


253 


deserves  reprobation,  whether  the  book  be  ancient  or 
recent.  An  effort  of  this  kind  must  always  have  been 
considered  a  piece  of  knavery.  Where  there  is  plainly 
discovered  an  earnest  regard  for  the  law  of  veracity, 
we  are  cut  off  from  supposing  anything  like  a  pious 
fraud.  In  this  case,  we  must  give  credit  to  the  testi¬ 
mony  which  the  book  itself  offers  respecting  its  author. 
Much  more  are  we  precluded,  in  that  case,  from 
considering  a  large  part  of  the  narrative  a  deliberate 
fiction.  Now  there  is  manifest  throughout  the  book 
of  Acts  a  penetrating  discernment  of  the  sacredness 
of  truth  and  the  obligation  of  veracity.  He  who  set 
down  the  record  of  the  sin  and  punishment  of  Ananias 
and  Sapphira  was  incapable  of  palming  off,  as  a 
veritable  history  of  the  apostles  and  of  the  manner  in 
which  they  were  guided  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  a  series 
of  fictitious  stories  invented  by  himself.  Dropping 
for  the  moment  the  question  of  the  general  verity  of 
the  narrative,  let  us  observe  the  amount  of  duplicity 
which  the  above-described  theory  of  Zeller  imputes  to 
the  author  of  the  Acts.  The  retention  of  the  “  we  ” 
in  a  document  which  he  has  recast  and  recomposed — 
a  retention  deliberately  resolved  upon,  we  are  told, 
for  the  sake  of  deceiving  the  reader  into  the  belief 
that  the  author  lived  long  before — is  certainly  equiva¬ 
lent,  in  a  moral  point  of  view,  to  the  insertion  of  this 
pronoun  by  the  writer  for  the  'same  end.1  If  the 
author,  writing,  it  is  supposed,  in  the  second  century, 


1  See  Lekebusch. 


254 


PARTIES  IN  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH. 


were  charged  with  inserting  this  word,  here  and  there, 
in  his  own  composition,  the  duplicity  would  not  be 
worse.  How  foreign  this  refined  method  of  self- 
advertisement  is  from  the  universal  habit  of  apocryphal 
writers,  who  are  apt  to  blazon  their  assumed  names 
on  the  front  of  their  works,  will  strike  all  who  are 
acquainted  with  this  species  of  literature.  A  writer 
capable  of  such  a  trick  as  is  charged  upon  the  author 
of  the  Acts,  would  almost  infallibly  have  introduced  , 
the  passages  which  contain  the  “  we  ”  with  an  explicit 
declaration  that  here  he  joined  Paul,  or  became  a 
participant  in  the  events  that  follow.  But  the  partic¬ 
ular  point  on  which  we  now  insist  is  the  incompati¬ 
bility  of  such  detestable  deceit  with  the  pure  and 
truthful  air  of  the  historian,  and  his  recognition  of  the 
law  of  veracity. 

3.  An  irrefragable  argument  for  the  genuineness 
and  credibility  of  Acts  is  afforded  by  the  relation  in 
which  it  stands  to  the  Pauline  Epistles. 

The  coincidences  and  diversities  are  each  an  im¬ 
pressive  proof  of  the  correctness  of  the  old  and  ac¬ 
cepted  view  concerning  the  book.  As  to  the  former, 
the  peculiarity  of  them,  as  Paley,  in  the  Horae  Paulina, 
has  very  ingeniously  shown,  is  that  they  are  unde¬ 
signed.  There  are  such  correspondences  with  the 
data  furnished  by  the  Epistles  as  could  not  have  been 
contrived,  for  they  can  only  be  detected  by  searching. 
The  omissions  in  the  Acts  are  an  equally  remarkable 
feature.  We  learn  from  the  Epistles  various  facts  of 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  ACTS. 


255 


importance  respecting  Paul,  which  a  writer  of  the 
second  century  would  certainly  have  worked  into  a 
history  or  historical  romance  in  which  the  Apostle  was 
to  figure  so  prominently.  Thus,  for  example,  we  have 
no  notice  in  the  Acts  of  the  sojourn  of  Paul  in  Arabia, 
shortly  after  his  conversion,  which  he  himself  mentions 
(Gal.  i.  17).  Luke  describes  him  as  preaching  in 
Damascus,  and,  “  after  that  many  days  were  fulfilled,” 
as  flying  from  the  machinations  of  the  Jews  to  Jerusa¬ 
lem.  Por  aught  that  appears,  the  author  of  the  Acts 
is  ignorant  of  the  fact  of  his  visiting  Arabia.  But  a 
later  writer,  with  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  in  his 
hand,  would  not  have  failed  to  show,  at  least,  his 
knowledge  of  an  event  so  distinctly  stated  by  the 
Apostle  himself.  The  three  shipwrecks,  and  most  of 
the  other  hardships  which  Paul  had  endured  (2  Cor. 
xi.  24  seq.),  are  not  mentioned  in  the  Acts.1  And  if 
we  look  at  what  is  actually  narrated  by  Luke,  although 
Baur’s  theory  of  an  inconsistency  between  the  general 
representations  of  the  Acts  and  the  Epistles  is  false, 
yet  the  former  shows  itself  an  independent  narrative. 
It  is  not  built  up  on  the  basis  of  information  derived 
from  the  writings  of  Paul.  These  are  not  made  use 
of  in  its  composition.  Now,  this  fact  demonstrates 
the  early  date  of  the  Acts.  Suppose  that  a  Gentile 
Christian  of  the  second  century  had  conceived  the  plan 
of  writing  a  work  for  the  purpose  which  Baur  attrib- 

1  The  shipwreck  recorded  in  the  Acts  was  subsequent  to  the 
writing  of  this  Epistle. 


256 


PARTIES  IN  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH. 


utes  to  the  author  of  this  book :  his  very  first  act 
would  have  been  to  resort  to  the  Epistles  for  the 
materials  out  of  which  to  construct  his  work.  Con¬ 
scious  that  a  comparison  of  his  production  with  these 
well-known  documents  would  be  inevitable,  he  would 
guard  against  the  semblance  of  contradiction.  He 
would  seek  throughout  to  dovetail  his  work  with  the 
authentic  records  of  the  apostolic  age.  Hence,  in 
laboring  to  swell  their  list  of  discrepancies  between  the 
Acts  and  Paul,  the  Tubingen  critics  are  unconsciously 
beating  down  their  own  theory. 

4.  Baur’s  tlieorv  is  not  sustained,  but  is  over- 
thrown,  by  a  candid  view  of  the  contents  of  the  Acts. 
Lekebusch  has  shown  that  the  alleged  parallelism  in 
the  career  of  Peter  and  of  Paul  is  chiefly  in  the 
imagination  of  the  critics,  and  that  the  differences  in 
their  respective  deeds  and  fortunes  are  vastly  more 
numerous  and  more  conspicuous  than  the  points  of 
resemblance.  In  truth,  there  are  no  such  resem¬ 
blances  which  are  not  accidental  and  to  be  expected 
in  the  case  of  the  two  leading  apostles,  both  of  whom 
were  engaged  in  the  same  work  and  exposed  to  like 
perils.  That,  in  the  Acts,  Paul  is  said  to  have  ad¬ 
dressed  himself,  in  the  places  he  visited,  first  to  the 
Jews  and  then  to  the  heathen,  rather  confirms  than 
weakens  the  authority  of  Luke ;  for  such  was  unques¬ 
tionably  the  historical  fact.  An  opposite  course  would 
have  been  in  the  highest  degree  unnatural.  The 
gospel  was  a  means  of  salvation  “  to  the  J ew  first , 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  ACTS. 


257 


and  also  to  the  Greek”  (Rom.  i.  16);  and  if  Paul 
was  the  Apostle  to  the  Gentiles,  this  meant  simply  that 
his  field  of  labor  was  in  Gentile  countries.  But  there 
are  passages  in  the  Acts  which  a  writer  having  the 
end  in  view  which  Baur  imputes  to  the  author  of  the 
book  would  never  have  admitted.  He  is,  by  the 
supposition,  a  Pauline  Christian,  and  designs  to  make 
it  appear  that  Paul  was  a  recognized  apostle,  on  a 
footing  of  perfect  equality  with  the  original  disciples. 
Yet  he  begins,  in  the  very  first  chapter,  by  describing 
the  choice  of  an  apostle,  at  the  instance  of  Peter,  to 
fill  up  the  number  of  the  twelve.  He  must  be,  said 
Peter,  one  who  “  has  companied  with  us  ”  through  the 
whole  life  of  Christ,  from  the  baptism  of  John,  and  be 
ordained  “  to  be  a  witness  with  us  of  his  resurrection  ” 
(Acts  i.  21,  22).  In  treating  of  the  Apocalypse, 
Baur — without  reason,  as  we  think — regards  the  allu¬ 
sions  to  “  the  twelve  ”  apostles  as  an  indirect  thrust 
at  the  Apostle  Paul,  and  a  sign  of  the  Judaizing  char¬ 
acter  of  the  book.  Yet  here  we  have  a  Pauline  Chris¬ 
tian  falling  into  a  similar  style  1  A  partisan  of  Paul, 
inventing  history  for  the  purpose  of  exalting  his  equal 
apostolic  claims,  it  is  safe  to  say,  would  never  have 
introduced  the  passage  in  question. 

But  let  us  turn  to  the  narrative  of  the  last  visit 
of  the  Apostle  Paul  to  Jerusalem — that  visit  which 
was  so  important  in  its  results,  and  is  so  fully  de¬ 
scribed  by  the  author  of  the  Acts.  It  is  one  main 

design,  they  say,  of  this  author  to  extenuate  and  hide 
17 


258 


PARTIES  IN  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH. 


from  view  tlie  mutual  opposition  of  the  two  branches 
of  the  Church,  and  to  produce  the  impression  that  the 
body  of  Jewish  Christians  agree  on  the  ritual  question 
with  Paul.  Now,  what  do  we  find  in  the  midst  of 
this  very  passage  in  which  Paul  is  brought  into  con¬ 
tact  with  the  church  at  Jerusalem  and  the  Jewish 
Christians  who  thronged  the  city  ?  Why,  James  and 
the  elders  at  Jerusalem  are  reported  as  saying  to 
Paul :  “  Thou  seest,  brother,  how  many  thousands  ” — 
literally  myriads,  juuptccdtg — -“of  Jews  there  are  which 
believe  ;  and  they  are  all  zealous  of  the  law ;  ”  and 
they  were  all  jealous  of  Paul  on  account  of  the  informa¬ 
tion  they  had  received  that  he  was  in  the  habit  of 
dissuading  Jews  from  observing  the  Mosaic  law  and 
circumcising  their  children.  That  is,  a  writer,  who  is 
inventing  and  altering  history  for  the  purpose  of 
hiding  a  fact,  gives  to  that  fact  a  conspicuous  place  in 
his  narrative!  Baur  has  no  other  solution  than  the 
remark  that  the  writer  here  “  forgets  the  role  he  is 
playing.'7  But  the  answer  is,  that  supposing  so 
shrewd  a  writer  as  he  is  represented  to  be,  to  forget 
anywhere  the  design  he  had  in  view,  he  could  not 
forget  it  in  the  crisis  of  the  whole  history,  when  Paul 
met  the  Jewish-Christian  Church  for  the  last  time,  and 
when  this  very  point  of  the  authority  of  the  ritual,  and 
the  views  and  feelings  of  the  Jewish  believers,  is  the 
theme  of  the  narrative.1 

1  Baur  more  than  insinuates  that  the  Jewish  Christians  took 
part  in  this  violent  attack  upon  Paul,  and  that  Luke  is  at  pains  to 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  ACTS. 


259 


We  have  adverted  above  to  the  manner  in  which 
the  author  of  the  Acts  begins  his  work.  Not  less 
incompatible  with  the  Tubingen  theory  is  the  manner 
in  which  he  concludes.  The  reader  must  bear  in 
mind  that,  according  to  Baur  and  Zeller,  a  main  aim 
of  the  writer  is  to  represent  the  Apostle  in  a  friendly 
attitude  towards  his  Jewish  countrymen.  A  Gentile 
Christian  holds  out  the  olive-branch  to  the  Jew.  But 
how  ends  this  “  reconciling  ”  and  “  pacifying  ”  pro¬ 
duction?  It  winds  up  with  a  denunciation  from  Paul 
against  the  unbelief  of  the  Jews,  in  which,  using  the 
stern  words  of  the  prophet  Isaiah,  he  charges  upon 
them  a  judicial  blindness,  and  adds  :  “  Be  it  known 
therefore  unto  you,  that  the  salvation  of  God  is  sent 
unto  the  Gentiles ,  and  that  they  will  hear  it  ”  That 
is,  the  divine  rejection  of  the  Jews  and  choice  of  the 
Gentiles  is  the  last  word  from  Paul  which  the  reader 
hears !  How  would  that  sound  in  the  ear  of  the 
zealous  Judaizer  whom  this  book  was  to  conciliate, 
and  win  to  the  esteem  of  Paul  and  of  his  type  of 
doctrine?  Is  it  not  plain  that  the  “tendency” 
ascribed  to  this  work  is  read  into  it  by  the  critics  ? 
Their  interpretation  is  not  drawn  from  an  unprejudiced 
examination  of  the  contents  of  the  book,  which  are 
flatly  inconsistent  with  it,  but  from  the  demands  of  a 

suppress  the  fact.  If  we  are  to  believe  Baur,  then,  the  same  writer 
who  so  flagrantly  “  forgets  his  part  ”  as  to  make  mention  of  the  zeal 
of  “  many  thousands”  of  believers  for  the  law,  recovers  his  memory 
so  fully  as  to  falsify  in  the  very  next  breath ! 


260 


PARTIES  IN  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH. 


preconceived,  and,  we  believe,  unfounded  historical 
theory  of  their  own  contriving. 

The  neglect  of  the  writer  to  avail  himself  of  the 
most  natural  means  of  promoting  his  alleged  purpose, 
is,  also,  a  proof  that  this  purpose  belongs  only  to  the 
critic’s  brain.  A  single  example  of  this  negligence,  un¬ 
accountable  on  Baur’s  theory  of  the  design  of  the  book, 
is  the  omission  of  the  writer  to  bring  Paul  and  Peter 
together  in  Borne,  where,  according  to  a  belief  then 
current,  they  both  perished  as  martyrs  in  the  Neronian 
persecution.1  What  would  the  writer  of  an  irenical 
fiction  lay  hold  of  so  soon,  as  the  supposed  conjunction 
of  the  two  apostles  in  the  capital  of  the  world,  and 
their  common  fate  P  How  easily  might  a  tale  be  spun 
out  of  this  meeting  of  the  leaders  of  the  two  branches 
of  the  Church,  which  would  effectually  promote  the 
author’s  plan  !  Yet  the  book  closes  abruptly — the 
author  seeming  at  last  to  hasten  to  the  conclusion 
— with  no  mention  of  Peter’s  visit  to  Borne,  con¬ 
nection  with  the  Gentile  capital,  or  interview  with 
Paul. 

5.  The  unfitness  of  such  a  work  as  the  book  of 
Acts  to  secure  the  end  for  which,  according  to  Baur, 

1  For  proof  that  the  report  of  Peter  having  suffered  martyrdom 
at  Rome  is  met  with  prior  to  the  date  assigned  hy  the  Tubingen 
critics  to  the  Acts,  see  Gieseler’s  Church  History,  B.  I.  s.  27,  NT.  6. 
In  truth,  there  is  no  sufficient  reason  for  disbelieving  the  tradition 
so  early  and  widely  current.  For  a  full  examination  of  the  point, 
see  Dr.  Schaff’s  History  of  the  Apostolic  Church ,  p.  372  seq.  See 
also  Bleek’s  Einl.,  s.  563. 


GENUINENESS  OE  THE  ACTS. 


261 


it  was  composed,  stands  in  the  way  of  the  acceptance 
of  his  theory. 

Here,  if  we  are  to  believe  the  Tubingen  critics, 
was  a  great  division  in  the  Church.  Jewish  Christians, 
on  the  one  hand,  following  the  doctrine  of  Peter,  re¬ 
quired  circumcision  and  a  compliance  with  the  ritual 
as  a  condition  of  fellowship  with  the  Gentile  Christians. 
The  latter,  on  the  contrary,  following  the  authority  of 
Paul,  as  decidedly  refused  to  yield  to  this  demand. 
Efforts  are  at  length  made  from  different  sides  to  bring 
about  an  accommodation.  And  this  writer  composes 
an  historical  romance  for  the  purpose  of  spreading 
such  a  conception  of  the  apostolic  history  as  shall 
remove,  especially,  the  Jewish- Christian  prejudice 
against  communion  with  the  heathen  believers.  To 
this  end  he  represents  Peter  as  tolerating  the  Gentiles 
in  their  uncircumcision,  as  taking  part  in  the  recep¬ 
tion  of  Cornelius  into  the  Church,  and  as  resisting  the 
imposition  of  the  yoke  of  ritual  observances  upon  the 
Gentiles.  But  how  would  the  judaizing  party  relish 
this  representation  of  their  great  Apostle  ?  Were 
they  so  little  wedded  to  their  principles  as  to  abandon 
them  the  moment  they  were  told  by  some  writer,  pre¬ 
tending  to  be  an  associate  of  Paul,  that  their  views 
relative  to  the  course  taken  by  Peter  and  in  respect 
to  his  doctrine  were  contrary  to  the  truth  ?  Plad  they 
only  to  be  told,  in  a  book  falsely  purporting  to  come 
from  a  Pauline  Christian  of  a  former  day,  that  Peter 
really  fraternized  with  Paul  and  was  in  favor  of  the 


262 


PARTIES  IN  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH. 


immunity  of  the  Gentile  converts?  And  similar 
inquiries  are  pertinent  when  we  consider  how  such  a 
work  would  be  received  by  the  followers  of  Paul.  If 
this  great  Apostle  had,  in  truth,  forbidden'  circumcision 
altogether,  as  the  Baur  school  pretend,  and  if  his 
disciples  were  rooted  in  their  attachment  to  his 
principles,  as  they  were  certainly  familiar  with  his 
writings,  how  would  they  be  satisfied  with  the  narra¬ 
tive  of  the  circumcision  of  Timothy  and  the  other 
examples  of  conformity  to  the  law,  recorded  in  the 
Acts  ?  Would  they  not  have  spurned  this  misrepre¬ 
sentation  of  the  principles  and  conduct  of  their  great 
leader,  and  made  their  appeal  to  the  very  passages  in 
his  Epistles  on  which  the  Tubingen  critics  found  their 
thesis  as  to  his  real  position  ?  It  is  unaccountable 
that  a  work  which  flies  in  the  face  of  the  cherished 
opinions  and  traditions  of  the  two  rival  parties,  should 
pass  uncontradicted,  and  even  contribute  to  secure 
a  most  important  change  in  the  platforms  on  which 
they  respectively  stand.  Yet  this  unknown  writer  in 
the  first  quarter  of  the  second  century,  audaciously 
perverting  the  facts  of  history  and  adding  incidents 
which  sprung  from  his  own  invention,  succeeded,  if 
we  are  to  believe  the  Tubingen  critics,  in  this  unex¬ 
ampled  imposture.  To  this  extent  do  these  critics 
task  our  credulity. 

To  what  desperate  shifts  the  Tubingen  critics  are 
driven,  in  their  effort  to  read  into  the  Acts  a  deep-laid 
plot  which  has  no  existence  outside  of  their  own 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  ACTS. 


263 


suspicious  fancy,  may  be  seen  from  one  or  two  exam¬ 
ples.  Luke  records  a  contention  between  Paul  and 
Barnabas  whicli  led  to  their  separation  from  each 
other.  Will  it  be  believed  that  he  is  charged  by  Baur 
with  making  this  record  of  a  comparatively  “  unim¬ 
portant  ”  dispute,  in  order  to  divert  the  thoughts  of 
his  readers  from  the  more  serious  quarrel  with  Peter, 
which  he  is  desirous  of  covering  up?  As  if  his 
readers,  with  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  in  their 
hand,  could  be  kept  in  ignorance  of  this  dispute  with 
Peter  !  As  if  the  allusion  to  one  conflict  could  sup¬ 
press  the  recollection  of  another  !  Why,  as  Lekebusch 
inquires,  should  he  not  rather  pass  over  in  silence  the 
minor  quarrel  also,  provided  his  aim  were  such  as 
Bam’  imagines  ?  The  earlier  prominent  record  of  the 
friendship  of  Paul  with  Barnabas,  that  “  distinguished 
and  meritorious  member  of  the  Jerusalem  church/’ 
is  attributed  to  the  apologetic  or  conciliatory  design 
of  the  author  of  the  Acts.  Yet  the  same  author  now 
describes  a  sharp  controversy  between  them !  The 
simple  truth  is,  that  the  conflict  with  Barnabas  is 
mentioned  because  it  had  an  influence  on  the  history 
of  the  missions  to  the  Gentiles  and  of  the  spread  of 
Christianity  among  them,  which  it  is  the  leading  pur¬ 
pose  of  Luke  to  narrate.  The  controversy  with  Peter 
had  no  such  influence.  It  was  merely  an  example  of 
the  inconsistency  of  Peter,  which  Luke,  if  he  was 
informed  of  it,  had  no  occasion  to  record.1 

1  See  Lekebusch,  s.  305. 


264 


PARTIES  IN  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH. 


Another  illustration  of  that  strange,  morbid  sus¬ 
picion  which  is  a  prime  quality  of  the  Tubingen 
criticism,  is  the  charge  that  the  journey  of  Paul  to 
Jerusalem  (Acts  xi.),  which  the  Apostle  in  Gal.  ii.  does 
not  mention,  was  invented  by  Luke  for  the  purpose 
of  bringing  Paul  as  often  as  possible  into  intercourse 
with  the  Jerusalem  apostles !  Now  if  we  look  at 
Luke’s  narrative,  we  find  that  all  he  says  of  that 
journey  is  in  one  verse  (v.  30)  :  “  and  they  sent  it 
[a  contribution  for  the  poor]  to  the  elders  by  the  hands 
of  Barnabas  and  Saul.”  If  Luke  had  the  purpose  of 
which  he  is  accused,  whv  should  he  confine  himself  to 
a  bare  mention  of  the  fact  of  the  journey  ?  Would  he 
not  infallibly  have  given  details  of  the  interview? 
Would  he  not,  at  least,  have  stated  that  Paul  met  the 
other  apostles  and  conferred  with  them  ?  Would  he, 
as  he  does,  make  it  known  that  Peter,  the  Jewish  - 
Christian  leader,  was  at  that  time  in  prison,  so  that 
he  and  Paul  could  not  have  met  ?  Luke  describes, 
with  some  detail,  the  occasion  of  the  contribution. 
Agabus,  one  of  the  prophets  who  had  come  from 
Jerusalem,  predicted  a  dearth,  and  the  Antioch  Chris¬ 
tians  accordingly  determined  to  send  relief  to  their 
brethren  in  Judea.  We  are  required,  then,  to  suppose 
that  Luke  took  pains  to  invent  all  this  to  serve  as  a 
preface  to  the  bare,  solitary  remark  that  Saul  was  sent 
to  Jerusalem  with  the  money.  This,  says  Lekebusch, 
is  to  make  Luke  build  up  mountains  that  a  mouse 
may  come  forth.  We  have  no  warrant  for  supposing 


265 


GENUINENESS  *  OF  THE  ACTS. 

that  Paul  intended  to  record  in  Galatians  all  the  visits 
he  had  made  to  Jerusalem.1  In  fact,  we  do  not  know 
that  on  the  occasion  referred  to  by  Luke,  in  Acts  xi., 
Paul  entered  Jerusalem.  He  was  indeed  sent  with 
Silas,  but,  as  Luke  says  nothing  further,  it  is  not 
improbable  that  he  was  prevented,  for  some  reason, 
from  going  so  far  as  the  city.  In  any  event,  the 
treatment  of  this  topic  by  Baur  and  his  followers  is  a 
fair  example  of  that  hyper-criticism  which  finds  an 
occult,  and  generally  a  bad,  motive  underneath  the 
simplest  historical  statement. 

The  historical  discrepancies  alleged  to  exist  be¬ 
tween  Luke  and  the  other  authorities,  whether  sacred 
or  secular — which  discrepancies,  were  they  made  out, 
cannot  be  shown  to  imply  any  design,  any  tendency , 
on  the  part  of  the  author — afford  no  help  to  the 
Tubingen  cause.  The  consideration  of  them,  in  case 
the  subject  of  inquiry  were  the  nature  and  extent  and 
the  proper  formula  of  inspiration ,  would  be  pertinent ; 
but  admitting  them  to  be  insoluble,  they  are  not  suffi¬ 
cient  to  affect  the  general  credibility  of  the  historian, 
which  is  the  question  under  discussion.  Take,  for 
example,  the  reference  to  Theudas  (Acts  v.  36),  and 
suppose  him  to  be  the  same  Theudas  whom  Josephus 
refers  to  (Antiq.  xx.  5,  1),  and  that  Luke  is  therefore 
guilty  of  an  anachronism ;  or,  suppose  an  error  in  the 
reference  in  the  Gospel  to  a  taxing  under  Cyrenius 

1  ttuXlv  (again,  another  time),  not  Seurepoi/,  is  the  word  he  uses 

(v.  1). 


266 


PARTIES  IN  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH. 


(Luke  ii.  1),  and  that  the  cause  which  drew  Joseph 
and  the  mother  of  Jesus  to  Bethlehem  is  mistakenly 
given — that  their  visit  to  Bethlehem  was  occasioned 
by  some  other  tax,  and  that  Luke's  chronology  on  this 
point  is  at  fault :  would  his  general  credibility  as  a 
historian  be  impaired?  If  so,  there  is  no  secular 
historian  who  does  not  fall  under  a  like  condemnation. 
There  was  a  traditional  belief  that  Martin  Luther  was 
born  during  a  visit  of  his  mother  to  a  fair  in  Eisleben. 
The  statement  is  found  in  so  good  an  authority  as 
Seckendorf,  who  doubtless  derived  it  from  what  he 
considered  an  authentic  source ;  and  after  him  it  is 
found  in  a  multitude  of  writers.  It  is  now  known, 
however,  that  the  parents  of  Luther  had  removed 
their  abode  to  Eisleben  before  the  birth  of  Luther,  and 
that  no  fair  was  held  in  the  place  at  that  time  1  Shall 
the  former  historians  of  Luther  be  for  this  reason  con¬ 
victed  of  carelessness  or  wilful  falsification  ?  Or  will  it 
be  denied,  on  account  of  their  discrepancy  with  later 
biographies,  that  Luther  was  born  in  Eisleben  ?  This 
would  be  parallel  to  the  course  taken  by  Strauss  and 
his  friends,  even  if  the  chronological  difficulty  in  Luke 
were  proved  to  be  insoluble.  Macaulay  attributes  the 
epithet  Silent ,  attached  to  the  name  of  William,  the 
founder  of  the  Dutch  Commonwealth,  to  his  taciturn 
habit  j1  although  the  truth  is  that  he  had  no  such  habit, 
and  acquired  this  title  from  his  prudent  reticence  on  a 
single  occasion.  The  same  historian  probably  con- 

1  Macaulay’s  Life  of  William  Pitt,  in  the  Encyclopaedia  Britannica . 


GENUINENESS  OE  THE  ACTS. 


267 


founded  William  Penn,  a  pardon-broker,  with  William 
Penn  the  Quaker.  This  may,  perhaps,  suggest  the 
possibility  of  there  being  more  than  one  Theudas. 
But  however  this  may  be,  who  will  charge  the  Eng¬ 
lish  historian  with  being  careless  in  his  researches  and 
uninformed  in  the  matters  whereof  he  writes  ?  It  may 
be  said  that  in  Luke  the  difficulty  is  enhanced  by  the 
occurrence  of  the  reference  to  Theudas  in  a  speech  of 
Gamaliel.  But — on  the  supposition,  again,  that  an 
error  here  were  proved — is  absolute  correctness  in  the 
report  of  a  public  speech,  and  in  all  the  historical 
references  it  may  contain,  so  very  common  ?  Suppose 
that  Gamaliel  was  known  to  have  referred,  in  his 
address  to  the  Sanhedrim,  to  various  factions  which 
had  all  proved  to  be  short-lived,  and  that  in  the 
version  of  the  speech  which  reached  Luke,  the  name 
of  Theudas  had  erroneously  crept  in,  owing  possibly 
to  the  circumstance  that  his  name  was  often  linked,  in 
common  speech,  with  that  of  Judas  of  Galilee,  whom 
Gamaliel  had  really  mentioned  :  we  affirm  that  analo¬ 
gous  examples  of  inaccuracy  can  be  found  in  the  most 
approved  and  trustworthy  historians.  These  alleged 
discrepancies,  and  all  others,  should,  each  by  itself,  be 
made  the  subject  of  fair  and  searching  investigation. 
But  the  apologist  and  the  skeptic  both  err  when  the 
latter  claims,  and  the  former  consents,  to  stake  the 
credibility  of  the  New  Testament,  much  more  the 
cause  of  supernatural  Christianity  itself,  upon  the 
possibility  of  harmonizing  all  minor  diversities.  To 


268 


PARTIES  IN  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH. 


the  antagonist  of  revelation  we  say,  Grant  that  it 
cannot  be  done  ;  even  grant  that  the  sacred  historians 
stand  in  all  respects  upon  a  level  with  uninspired 
writers  of  equal  qualifications  for  ascertaining  the 
truth  and  of  equal  integrity  in  communicating  it ;  yet 
you  are  as  far  as  ever  from  succeeding  in  your  attack 
upon  revelation.  Were  it  our  purpose,  in  this  Essay, 
to  go  beyond  the  special  objections  characteristic  of 
the  Tubingen  school,  we  might  dwell  upon  the  num¬ 
berless  allusions  in  the  Acts  to  points  of  geography 
and  history,  to  existing  features  of  law  and  govern¬ 
ment,  to  customs  and  manners,  most  of  which  are 
incidental  and  such  as  only  a  contemporary  writer 
could  weave  into  a  narrative.  It  is  not  too  much  to 
say  that  the  general  correctness  of  Luke  in  these 
manifold  particulars  has  been  positively  established. 
The  passage,  for  example,  relating  to  the  voyage  and 
shipwreck  of  St.  Paul,  has  been  subjected  to  a  most 
thorough  scrutiny,  and  the  pathway  of  the  ship 
followed  from  point  to  point.  The  result  is  a  striking 
verification  of  Luke’s  narrative.  He  is  shown  to  be, 
by  this  passage  in  his  narrative,  an  observing  and 
truthful  writer.1 

1  See  Smith’s  Voyage  and  Shipwreck  of  St.  Paul ;  also  the  excel¬ 
lent  Life  of  St.  Paul  by  Conybeare  and  Howson.  A  beautiful 
instance  of  Luke’s  candor  is  Acts  xxi.  29.  Describing  the  rage  of  the 
fanatical  Jews  from  Asia,  and  their  cry  that  Paul  had  introduced 
Greeks  into  the  temple,  he  adds,  parenthetically:  “For  they  had 
seen  before  with  him  in  the  city,  Trophimus,  an  Ephesian,  whom  they 
supposed  that  Paul  had  drought  into  the  temple  P  The  effect  of  this 
remark  of  Luke  is  to  palliate  their  guilt  in  offering  violence  to  Paul. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  ACTS. 


269 


The  speeches  recorded  by  Luke  in  the  Acts  have 
been  a  favorite  subject  of  skeptical  attack.  But  the 
force  of  this  attack  is  broken  when  it  is  conceded  that 
the  language  in  which  the  speeches  are  presented,  is, 
generally  speaking,  that  of  the  historian.  Some  of 
them  were  not  made  in  the  Greek,  but  in  another 
tongue  ;  and  in  regard  to  the  rest,  it  must  be  in  fair¬ 
ness,  and  may  be  with  safety,  allowed  that  the  form  in 
which  they  are  recorded  is  given  them  by  Luke.  This 
accounts  for  their  resemblance  in  phraseology  to  the 
ordinary  style  of  Luke’s  narrative.  Ancient  historians, 
as  all  scholars  know,  were  in  the  habit  of  throwing 
into  the  direct  form — the  oratio  directa — or  the  form 
of  quotation,  what  a  modern  writer  presents  in  form  as 
well  as  in  fact  in  his  own  language.  But  when  we 
look  at  the  contents  of  the  speeches  in  the  Acts,  they 
are  found  to  harmonize  with  the  known  characters  of 
the  various  persons  to  whom  they  are  ascribed,  and 

were  severally 
uttered.  As  an  offset  to  the  complaint  that  Paul’s 
peculiar  doctrine  is  missing  from  his  speeches,  and 
from  the  book  generally,  we  may  put  the  judgment  of 
Luther  that  the  principal  purpose  for  which  the  book 
was  written  was  to  “  teach  all  Christendom  the  great 

They  had  drawn  a  false  inference  from  seeing  Trophimus  with  Paul 
in  another  place.  With  his  usual  felicity,  Bengel  points  out  the 
accordance  of  this  circumstance  of  Paul’s  association  with  Trophimus, 
with  the  Apostle’s  character :  “  Paulus  Trophimum  non  introduxit 
in  templum  :  neque  enim  tamen  plane  vitavit  Judaeorum  causa.” 
Gnomon  (Acts  xxi.  29). 


with  the  circumstances  in  which  they 


270  PARTIES  IN  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH. 

fundamental  Christian  doctrine5’  of  justification  by 
faith  alone.1  The  reader  has  only  to  recall  such  pas¬ 
sages  as  the  direction  given  to  the  trembling  jailer  who 
inquired  what  he  should  do  to  be  saved,  to  be  convinced 
of  the  groundless  nature  of  this  piece  of  criticism. 

The  speeches  of  Paul  have  been  made  the  subject 
of  a  special,  instructive  discussion  from  the  pen  of 
Tholuck.2  The  principal  part  of  his  article  is  taken 
up  with  a  comparison  of  the  farewell  address  of  the 
Apostle  to  the  elders  of  Ephesus,  at  Miletus,  with  the 
writings  of  Paul — the  purpose  being  to  show  the 
correspondence  of  that  address  with  the  Apostle’s 
character  and  modes  of  thought.  That  the  reader 
may  be  enabled  to  follow  out  this  investigation  for 
himself,  we  furnish  here  a  very  brief  outline  of  most 
of  the  points  in  the  comparison.  The  address  is 
contained  in  the  twentieth  chapter  of  Acts.  Paul’s 
description  of  his  pastoral  fidelity  (vs.  18-21),  is 
shown  to  harmonize  strikingly  with  allusions  to  the 
same  topic  in  1  Thess.  ii.  10  and  2  Cor.  vi.  3,  4.  It 
is  the  habit  of  Paul  frequently  to  appeal  to  his  own 
life  and  conduct,  partly  in  answer  to  calumnies,  and 
partly  to  excite  other  Christians  to  follow  his  example, 
as  in  2  Cor.  i.  12;  1  Cor.  xi.  1 ;  Phil.  iii.  15.  The 
mention  of  his  tears,  in  the  address  (ver.  31),  brings 
out  a  characteristic  of  Paul  which  is  also  discovered 
from  2  Cor.  ii.  4,  where  the  Apostle  says  that  he  wrote 
to  the  Corinthians  with  “  many  tears.”  In  each  case 

5  In  the  Stud.  u.  Krit .,  1839,  II. 


1  Quoted  in  Lekeb.,  s.  235. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  ACTS. 


271 


it  is  tears  of  love  and  of  yearning  over  them  for  whose 
spiritual  safety  he  is  anxious.  A  little,  yet  striking 
mark  of  the  authenticity  of  Luke’s  report  is  Paul’s 
allusion  (ver.  19)  to  what  he  had  suffered  at  Ephesus 
from  “  the  lying  in  wait  of  the  Jews ;  ”  since  in  his 
narrative  Luke  had  not  mentioned  any  such  persecu¬ 
tion,  but  only  the  tumult  raised  by  Demetrius.  Had 
the  address  been  invented  by  Luke,  there  would 
almost  certainly  be  in  the  narrative  an  explanatory 
passage.  In  ver.  20,  Paul  reminds  the  elders  of  his 
preaching  in  private  as  well  as  in  public ;  which  falls 
in  wTitli  1  Thess.  ii.  11,  and  with  his  exhortation  to 
Timothy  (2  Tim.  iv.  2)  to  preach  “  in  season  and  out 
of  season.”  His  boldness  in  preaching  and  his  free¬ 
dom  from  the  fear  of  man  (ver.  27),  are  the  same 
qualities  to  which  he  adverts  in  2  Cor.  iv.  2  and  1 
Thess.  ii.  4,  professing  in  the  last  passage  that  he  did 
not  speak  “  as  pleasing  men,  but  God  which  trieth  our 
hearts.”  In  ver.  22,  he  anticipates  persecution  in 
Jerusalem;  in  Rom,  xv.  31,  he  expresses  the  same 
fear.  How  accordant  is  the  Apostle’s  expression  of 
the  cheap  estimate  he  puts  upon  life,  if  he  might 
finish  the  ministry  committed  to  him  by  the  Lord 
Jesus  (ver.  24,  to  be  compared  with  xxi.  13),  with 
the  expression  of  self-sacrifice  in  Phil.  ii.  17,  and  of 
triumph  in  2  Tim.  iv.  7  !  The  presage  of  future 
dangers  to  the  Church  (vs  29,  30)  may  be  compared 
with  1  Tim.  iv.  1,  and  is  shown  by  the  Epistle  to  the 
Ephesians  to  have  been  verified.  The  same  diligence 


272 


PARTIES  IN  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH. 


and  tenderness  with  which  he  had  warned  the  Ephe¬ 
sians  (ver.  31),  we  find  him  claiming  to  have  exercised 
in  regard  to  the  Thessalonians,  to  whom  he  says  (1 
Thess.  ii.  11),  u  ye  know  how  we  exhorted  and  com¬ 
forted  and  charged  every  one  of  you,  as  a  father  does 
his  children.”  The  commending  of  the  elders  to  God 
and  the  word  of  His  grace,  which  was  able  “  to  build 
them  up  ”  (ver.  32),  chimes  with  the  benediction  in 
Rom.  xvi.  25,  beginning:  “Now  unto  Him  that  is 
able  to  establish  you.”  In  ver.  33,  we  hear  the 
Apostle  remind  the  elders  how,  coveting  no  man’s  sil¬ 
ver,  or  gold,  or  apparel,  he  had  sustained  himself  and 
his  attendants  by  the  labor  of  his  own  hands.  His 
motives  for  pursuing  this  course  are  not  explained 
here,  but  must  be  learned  from  the  Epistles,  in  1 
Thess.  ii.  9  ;  2  Thess.  iii.  7-9  ;  1  Cor.  iv.  12,  ix.  12; 
2  Cor.  xi.  8.  Especially  worthy  of  note  is  the  expres¬ 
sion  “  these  hands  ” — cd  avrac  (ver.  34) — 

words  requiring  us  to  suppose  a  gesture  to  accom¬ 
pany  them.  Still  more  deserving  of  remark  is  the 
quotation  of  a  saying  of  Christ  not  elsewhere  re¬ 
corded  :  “  it  is  more  blessed  to  give  than  to  receive  ” 
(ver.  35).  The  saying  itself  is  worthy  to  emanate 
from  Christ,  and  is  conformed  to  the  spirit  and  style 
of  his  teaching.  Coming  in  so  simply  and  naturally, 
it  seems  to  bear  witness  to  the  truth  and  fidelity  of 
the  entire  report  of  the  Apostle’s  discourse. 

In  the  preceding  observations  °we  have  employed 
for  the  purpose  of  refuting  the  Tubingen  hypothesis — 


GENUINENESS  OE  THE  ACTS.  273 

except  in  the  last  remarks  on  the  speeches  of  Paul — • 
only  the  four  Pauline  Epistles  accepted  by  Baur.  But 
when  we  inquire  for  the  grounds  on  which  the 
genuineness  of  the  remaining  canonical  Epistles 
ascribed  to  this  apostle  is  denied,  we  find  that  the 
principal  reason  is  the  inconsistency  of  their  repre¬ 
sentations  with  the  theory  which  the  four  are  supposed 
to  authorize.  On  this  ground,  chiefly,  even  the  Epis¬ 
tles  to  the  Colossians  and  Philippians,  which  were 
never  before  doubted,  and  the  marks  of  whose  Pauline 
authorship  are  so  irresistibly  evident  in  their  style  and 
contents,  are  declared  to  be  spurious  !  One  would 
think  that  the  inconsistency  of  these  documents  with 
Baur’s  theory  would  raise  in  his  mind  a  strong  pre¬ 
sumption,  not  against  them,  but  against  that.  But 
when  we  discover  that  his  theory  is  overthrown  by 
the  testimony  of  the  very  documents  on  which  he 
chooses  to  rely,  and  that  his  main  objection  to  the 
genuineness  of  the  other  leading  Epistles  of  Paul  is 
thus  taken  away,  we  may  resort  to  them  for  further 
illustration  of  the  view  which  the  Apostle  took  of  the 
Jewish  Christians.  We  find  him,  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Ephesians,  telling  the  Gentiles  that  they  are  no  more 
“  strangers  and  foreigners,  but  fellow-citizens  with  the 
saints,  and  of  the  household  of  God,”  and  “  built 
upon  the  foundation  of  the  apostles  and  prophets  ” 
(Eph.  ii.  19,  20).  How  fully  does  this  harmonize 
with  the  spirit  of  the*beautiful  passage  in  the  Homans, 

where  Paul  compares  the  Gentiles,  in  their  relation  to 
18 


274 


PARTIES  IN  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH. 


Israel,  to  the  wild  olive-tree  grafted  upon  the  native 
olive  and  partaking  of  its  “  root  and  fatness  ”  (Rom. 
xi.  17) !  We  find  him  in  the  1st  Epistle  to  the 
Thessalonians,  saying :  “  for  ye,  brethren,  became 
folloivers  of  the  churches  of  God  tohich  in  Judea  are  in 
Christ  Jesus  :  for  ye,  also,  have  suffered  like  things  of 
your  own  countrymen,  even  as  they  have  of  the  Jews  ” 
— the  Jews,  who  likewise  “  forbid  us  to  speak  to  the 
Gentiles  that  they  might  be  saved  ”  (1  Thess.  ii.  14 
seq.).  The  Thessalonians,  in  the  heroic  spirit  with 
which  they  had  met  persecution,  had  resembled  their 
Christian  brethren  in  Judea,  whose  firmness  under 
such  trial  was  well  known.  This  one  expression  of 
honor  to  the  faithful  Christians  of  Judea,  joined,  as 
it  is,  with  reprobation  of  the  conduct  of  the  unbe¬ 
lieving  Jews,  destroys  the  theory  of  Baur.1 

1  The  attack  of  the  Tubingen  school  upon  the  genuineness  of 
most  of  the  Pauline  Epistles,  resting  as  it  does  upon  false  assump¬ 
tions,  should  not  be  allowed  for  a  moment  to  affect  the  judgment 
wkich  is  founded  on  positive,  abundant  proofs.  Take,  for  example, 
the  1st  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians.  Its  Pauline  authorship  was 
never  doubted  until  it  was  doubted  by  Baur.  It  is  not  only  re¬ 
cognized  by  the  great  church  teachers  in  the  second  half  of  the 
second  century,  but  is  found  in  the  Syrian  version,  in  the  canon 
of  Muratori,  even  in  the  canon  of  Marcion.  Its  language  is  Pauline. 
Its  tone  and  spirit  are  Pauline.  Its  contents  are  adapted  to  a 
state  of  the  Thessalonian  church  which  may  well  be  supposed  to 
have  existed.  It  has  correspondences  with  the  Acts,  which  are 
obviously  uncontrived,  yet  exact.  Compare  1  Thess.  iii.  1,  2  with 
Acts  xvii.  15,  xviii.  5.  And  if  the  pas^gge — iy.  15,  17 — express  a 
hope  or  an  expectation  of  the  i rapovaia  during  the  Apostle’s  lifetime, 
it  demonstrates  the  Pauline  authorship,  since  no  writer  of  the  sec¬ 
ond  century  would  attribute  such  a  disappointed  expectation  to 


FIRST  EPISTLE  OF  PETER. 


275 


There  are  three  other  documents  in  the  New 
Testament  canon  which  throw  important  light  upon  the 
subject  of  this  Essay.  These  are  the  1st  Epistle  of 
Peter,  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  and  the  Apocalypse. 


Paul.  The  objections  of  Baur  to  the  Pauline  origin  of  this  Epistle 
are  of  no  weight,  and  mainly  rest  upon  misinterpretation. 

There  are  thirteen  canonical  Epistles  bearing  the  name  of  Paul. 
No  criticism — save  that  of  the  Baur  school — which  by  any  stretch  of 
charity  can  be  called  sober,  pretends  to  deny  the  genuineness  of  the 
Epistles  to  the  Philippians,  to  the  Colossians,  the  two  Epistles  to  the 
Thessalonians,  and  the  Epistle  to  Philemon.  The  Pauline  authorship 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  may  be  said  to  have  been  completely 
vindicated  against  the  doubts  suggested  by  De  Wette  and  others.  In 
fact,  one  of  the  main  grounds  of  doubt — the  absence  of  personal 
greetings — is  an  argument  for  the  genuineness  of  the  work  ;  since, 
though  we  can  only  conjecture  the  cause  of  this  peculiarity,  it  is 
one  which  a  forger  would  last  of  all  have  permitted  to  exist.  Of 
the  Pastoral  Epistles,  the  2d  of  Timothy  and  the  Epistle  to  Titus  are 
fully  proved  to  be  Pauline,  and  recognized  as  such  by  unprejudiced 
critics,  like  Bleek  and  Meyer,  who  hold  themselves  at  liberty  to 
judge  with  perfect  freedom  of  the  claim  of  a  book  to  a  place  in  the 
canon.  Of  the  1st  Epistle  to  Timothy,  Meander  says  that  he  is  not 
convinced  of  its  genuineness  with  the  “same  assurance  that  he  has 
in  reference  to  the  authorship  of  the  other  Pauline  Epistles.”'  Apos- 
telgeschicMe ,  B.  I.  s.  538.  N.  Such  misgivings,  however,  in  respect 
to  either  of  the  Pastoral  Epistles,  are  not  shared  by  critics  of  equal 
candor  and  penetration ;  for  example,  by  the  late  Dr.  Arnold.  As 
to  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  a  point  about  which  the 
opinion  of  the  ancient  Church  was  divided,  he  is  now  generally  con¬ 
ceded  to  have  been,  not  Paul  himself,  but  a  disciple  of  Paul.  This 
was  the  opinion,  also,  of  Erasmus,  Luther,  and  Calvin.  It  is  the 
view  of  Meander,  Bleek,  Meyer,  and,  in  fact,  of  all  or  nearly  all  the 
German  critics.  Its  early  date  is,  however,  established  ;  and  if  not 
written  by  Paul,  it  has  the  same  relation  to  him  as  the  writings  of 
Luke  have,  and  the  same  right  in  the  canon  as  the  second  and  third 
Gospels  and  the  Acts. 


276 


PARTIES  IN  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH. 


The  1st  Epistle  of  Peter  is  reckoned  by  Eusebius 
among  the  Homologoumena — the  writings  of  undis¬ 
puted  genuineness.  Among  the  witnesses  to  its 
authenticity  are  Papias  and  Polycarp.1  It  is  addressed 
apparently  to  the  first  generation  of  converts  from 
heathenism,  and  not  to  their  children  or  grandchildren 
(e.  g.  1  Peter  i.  14).  It  purports  to  come  from  “  a 
witness  of  the  sufferings  of  Christ  ”  (1  Peter  v.  1) ;  a 
fact  introduced  so  briefly  and  naturally  as  to  convince 
Schleiermacher  that  the  expression  was  not  put  into 
the  mouth  of  Peter,  but  was  truly  his  own.  It  is 
addressed  to  “  the  strangers  scattered  throughout  Asia 
Minor ;  ”  and  yet  the  contents  of  the  Epistle  make  it 
clear  that  Gentiles  are  meant ;  so  that  in  this  designa¬ 
tion  of  them  as  SiaOTioQcc,  the  metropolitan  character, 
so  to  speak,  of  Judaean  Christianity  is  assumed  in  a 
manner  natural  to  Peter.  It  was  written  from  Baby¬ 
lon — the  literal,  as  we  think,  and  not  the  mystical, 
Babylon — where  Jews  were  so  numerous,  and  where 
Peter  would  naturally  be  drawn  in  the  prosecution  of 
his  missionary  labors.  A  suitable  occasion  for  his  writ¬ 
ing  was  afforded  by  the  journey  of  Silas  (1  Peter  v. 
12),  formerly  a  member  of  the  Jerusalem  church  and 
afterwards  concerned  with  Paul  in  founding  and  train- 

1  Eusebius,  iii.  39,  iv.  14.  Those  who  deny  the  genuineness  of 
the  2d  Epistle  of  Peter,  must  yet  place  it  not  later  than  the  begin¬ 
ning  of  the  second  century ;  and  hence  the  testimony  of  this  docu¬ 
ment  (2  Peter  iii.  1)  to  the  1st  Epistle,  as  a  work  of  Peter,  is  val¬ 
uable.  See  on  this  and  the  other  points  of  proof,  Bleek’s  Einl .,  s. 
5G5  seq. 


EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS. 


277 


ing  the  very  churches  to  which  he  now  carried  this 
letter.  In  these  churches  there  were  those  who,  as  we 
learn  from  Paul  in  his  later  Epistles,  had,  through  the 
influence  of  Judaizers,  begun  to  fear  that  they  had 
not  received  the  true  gospel.  Now  Peter  reassures 
this  class  by  simply  saying  at  the  close  of  his  letter : 
“  I  have  written  briefly,  exhorting  and  testifying  that 
this  is  the  trice  grace  of  God  wherein  ye  stand It  is 
an  expression  of  confidence  and  fraternal  sympathy 
from  the  Apostle  “  to  the  circumcision,”  written 
within  a  few  years  preceding  the  destruction  of  Jerusa¬ 
lem  and  shortly  before  his  own  death. 

Another  most  interesting  monument  of  the  state 
of  things  at  that  critical  time,  is  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews.  It  was  written  while  the  temple  was  yet 
standing,  but  not  very  long  before  the  siege  and  cap¬ 
ture  of  the  city  by  Titus.  It  was  addressed  to  Jewish 
Christians,  and,  as  we  believe,  to  the  Palestinian 
Christians.  It  was  written  to  keep  them  from  apos¬ 
tasy — from  lapsing  into  mere  Judaism.  This,  every 
one  must  see,  was  the  great  danger  so  long  as  the 
Jewish  Christians  continued  to  cling  to  the  ritual.  It 
would  seem  that  there  were  some  of  this  class  who  had 
ceased  to  meet  with  their  brethren  (Hebrews  x.  25). 
It  is  probable  that  with  the  rapid  growth  of  the  Gentile 
branch  of  the  church,  which  was  attended  by  a  grow¬ 
ing  indifference  to  the  ceremonial  law  still  sacred  to 
the  native  Jew,  the  disaffection  of  the  Jewish  Christians 
increased ;  and  it  is  not  improbable  that  in  that  class 


278 


PARTIES  IN  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH 


who  are  described  as  “  forsaking  the  assembling  of 
themselves  together  ”  is  to  be  recognized  the  germ  of 
heretical  judaizing  sects  which  become  known  to  ns  at  a 
later  day.  The  great  aim  of  the  author  of  the  Epistle 
is  to  persuade  the  Jewish  Christian  that  in  Christ  the 
ritual  is  fulfilled ;  that  in  Him  all  that  he  had  in  the 
law  is  retained  in  a  perfect  and  satisfying  form. 

Not  less  interesting  as  a  memorial  of  the  state  of 
things  which  we  are  attempting  to  depict,  is  the 
Apocalypse.  The  Apocalypse  was  written — this  fact, 
we  take  it,  is  now  established,  notwithstanding  the 
continued  dissent  of  a  critic  here  or  there — shortly 
after  the  Neronian  persecution,  and  shortly  before  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem.  The  Apostles  Peter  and 
Paul  had  been  put  to  death.  The  bitter  fanaticism  of 
the  Jews  and  all  the  signs  of  the  times  foretokened 
the  judgments  soon  to  fall  upon  the  Jewish  state.  The 
condition  of  the  churches  in  Asia  Minor,  coupled,  we 
may  well  believe,  with  the  persecuting  animosity  of  his 
countrymen  “  according  to  the  flesh  ”  in  Jerusalem, 
had  drawn  the  Apostle  John  to  Ephesus.  The  pre¬ 
ponderance  of  proof,  in  our  opinion,  is  in  favor  of  the 
more  common  opinion  that  the  Apostle  is  the  author 
of  the  Apocalypse.  But  if  not  his  work,  it  was 
certainly  written  by  some  one  who  belonged  to  his 
school  and  his  neighborhood.  Baur,  who  holds  that 
the  Apostle  himself  wrote  it,  has  most  unsuccessfully 
attempted  to  find  in  it  a  judaizing  and  anti-Pauline 
character.  The  distinction  put  upon  the  twelve  apos- 


THE  APOCALYPSE. 


279 


ties  (Rev.  xxi.  14)  is  one  of  his  arguments.  If  this 
have  any  force,  then  Acts  was  written  by  a  Judaizer 
(see  Acts  i.  21  seq.) ;  and  Luke’s  Gospel  also  (see 
Luke  xxii.  30),  which  Baur  considers  especially  Pauline 
in  its  spirit.  Baur  even  discerns  in  the  reference  to 
false  or  pretended  apostles  (Rev.  ii.  2)  a  side  hit  at 
Paul !  Ewald,  with  just  as  little  reason,  considers 
them  Judaizers.  It  is  probable  that  they  were  leaders 
of  the  Nicolaitans,  who  seem  to  have  been  a  sect  of 
antinomian,  gnostical  libertines — abusing  their  freedom 
in  the  gospel  by  joining  the  heathen  in  licentious 
pleasures,  and  blending  a  sort  of  gnosis,  which  the 
writer  designates  a  knowing  of  <c  the  depths  of  Satan  ” 
(Rev.  iii.  24) ;  using,  perhaps,  the  term  Satan,  as  in 
the  other  phrase — the  synagogue  of  Satan — where 
they  would  use  God.  A  judaizing  spirit  is  inferred  by 
Baur  from  the  distinct  mention  of  the  “  hundred  and 
forty  and  four  thousand  ”  from  the  tribes  of  Israel 
(Rev.  vii.  4)  who  were  among  the  redeemed.  Plow 
ill-founded  is  this  conclusion  we  see  when  we  further 
read  that  those  gathered  from  “  all  nations,  and  kin¬ 
dreds,  and  people,  and  tongues,”  instead  of  being  a 
definite,  symbolical  to  be  sure,  yet  limited,  number, 
*  were  “  a  great  multitude  which  no  man  could  count  ” 
(ver.  9).  But  the  Apocalypse  affords  a  happy  con¬ 
firmation  of  the  historical  truth  of  the  apostolic  conven¬ 
tion.  Having  alluded  (Rev.  ii.  20)  as  he  had  done 
before  (ver.  14)  to  the  obligation  to  abstain  from  forni¬ 
cation  and  from  meat  sacrificed  to  idols,  the  writer 


280 


PARTIES  IN  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH. 


adds  (vs.  24,  25),  “  I  will  put  upon  you  none  other  bur¬ 
den  :  but  that  wliicli  ye  have  already  ”■ — namely,  the 
true  faith — “  hold  fast  till  I  come.”  Here  the  context 
requires  us  to  suppose  that  “  burden  ”  signifies  injunc¬ 
tion  ;  and  thus  we  are  obliged  to  explain  the  passage 
by  referring  back  to  what  he  has  said  on  the  two 
points  of  duty  above  mentioned.  In  the  requirement 
to  abstain  from  fornication  and  from  flesh  offered  to 
idols,  he  would  add  no  other  burden — d)do  /3d  qo; — 
the  very  word  used  in  the  rescript  of  the  apostolic  con¬ 
vention  (Acts  xv.  21) ! 1  To  our  mind,  this  passage 
affords  a  striking  corroboration  of  the  narrative  of 
Luke.  A  portion  of  the  Asia  Minor  Christians  had 
neglected  the  warnings  of  Paul,  had  abused  their  free¬ 
dom,  making  it  an  obedience  to  lust,  and  had  mingled 
with  the  heathen  in  their  licentious  feasts.  Hence  the 
need  of  imposing  the  old  restraints,  and  the  Apostle 
revives  the  rules  suggested  by  that  early  conference  in 
which  he  had  himself  taken  part. 

We  may  sum  up  in  a  few  words  the  main  points 
in  the  view  we  have  taken.  The  apostles  and  most 
other  Jewish  Christians  kept  up  the  observance  of  the 
ceremonial  law,  and  felt  bound  so  to  do  until  Christ 
should  appear  to  abrogate  that  law,  or  in  some  other 
way  should  explicitly  declare  the  old  ritual  abolished. 
Peter  was  divinely  instructed  in  the  affair  of  Cornelius, 

1  The  interpretation  we  have  given  above  is  sanctioned  by  high 
critical  authority,  including  that  of  Liinemann  (in  Meyer)  and 
Alford. 


THE  APOCALYPSE. 


281 

k 

that  free  intercourse  with  the  Gentile  convert  was  no 
sin.  This  lesson  by  him  was  not  forgotten.  At 
Antioch  he  ate  with  the  Gentile  believers,  except  when, 
under  temptation,  he  was  false  to  his  convictions.  The 
Jewish  believers,  seeing  that  the  Gentiles  had  actually 
become  Christians  and  received  the  Spirit  without  hav¬ 
ing  been  circumcised,  cordially  and  thankfully  acknowl¬ 
edged  them  as  brethren,  and  refused  to  yield  to  the 
judaizing  faction  which  required  that  they  should  be 
circumcised.  At  the  same  time  there  was  a  difficulty 
in  overstepping  the  legal  restrictions  upon  intercourse 
with  them  as  long  as  the  law  continued  to  be  observed. 
They  could  not  cast  aside  all  these  restrictions  without 
casting  aside  the  law  itself — a  step  for  which  they  were 
not  prepared.  Hence  the  door  was  open  for  the  efforts 
of  the  active  party  of  Judaizers.  These  efforts,  how¬ 
ever,  had  not  the  sympathy  or  countenance  of  “the 
pillars  ”  of  the  Jewish-Christian  church.  The  funda¬ 
mental  error  of  Baur,  as  we  believe,  is  the  doctrine  that 
the  Jerusalem  apostles  required  the  circumcision  of  the 
Gentile  converts.  In  supporting  this  error,  he  is 
obliged  not  only  to  attack  the  genuineness  of  the  Acts 
and  the  moral  character  of  the  author,  but  also  to  do 
violence  to  the  positive  testimony  of  Paul  himself  in 
Gal.  ii.  The  progress  of  the  Gentile  church  led  to  the 
sharpening  of  the  opposition  from  the  side  of  the 
judaizing  party,  and  probably  to  an  augmentation  of 
its  strength.  Only  great  providential  events  could 
clear  the  Christian  Church  of  its  connection  with  the 


282 


PARTIES  IN  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH. 


Old  Testament  system.  These  events  at  length  came ; 
first,  the  capture  of  Jerusalem  by  Titus,  after  the  Jew. 
ish  Christians  had  mostly  fled  to  the  neighborhood  of 
the  Dead  Sea  :  then,  after  the  insurrection  by  Bar- 
chochebas,  the  absolute  prohibition*  by  Hadrian  (a.  d. 
135)  of  the  temple-worship  in  the  city,  to  which  he 
gave  the  Roman  name  of  i Elia  Capitolina.  This  last 
event  was  the  crisis  that  determined  the  fate  of  Jewish 
Christianity.  Henceforward  only  a  church  on  Gentile 
foundations  could  exist  in  Jerusalem.  That  portion 
of  the  former  church  which  could  not  abandon  the 
ritual  became  resolved  into  the  heretical  sect  which 
lingered  for  centuries  under  the  name  of  Ebionites,  but 
consisting  of  two  main  subdivisions — one  that  of  Ebio¬ 
nites  proper,  who  refused  to  recognize  the  Gentiles  as 
Christians;  the  other  that  of  the  Nazarenes,  who  clung 
with  patriotic  attachment  to  the  ceremonies  of  the  law, 
not  denying,  however,  the  Christianity  of  the  Gentiles 
for  not  joining  them  in  its  observance.  The  head¬ 
quarters  of  the  Ebionite  party  was  the  region  on  the 
eastern  border  of  Palestine,  whither  the  Jewish  Chris¬ 
tians  had  originally  taken  refuge.  The  apostasy  which 
to  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  was  an 
imminent  danger,  actually  occurred  in  the  case  of  no 
small  fraction  of  the  Jerusalem  church.  And  thus  the 
saying  of  the  Apostle  John  had  a  new  and  pathetic 
verification :  “  He  came  unto  his  own,  and  his  own 
received  him  not.” 


ESSAY  Y. 


BAITR  ON  EBIONITISM  AND  THE  ORIGIN  OF  CATHOLIO 

CHRISTIANITY. 

The  rise  of  the  ancient  Catholic  church,  that 
church,  which,  with  its  unity  in  doctrine  and  creed, 
its  type  of  theology  too  legal  to  be  strictly  Pauline,  and 
its  hierarchical  order,  emerges  to  view  in  the  latter  half 
of  the  second  century,  is  one  of  the  most  interesting 
problems  of  history.  If  we  take  our  stand  at  the  time 
of  Irenaeus,  we  find  that  genuine  Christianity  begins 
to  be  recognized  as  confined  to  one  visible  body,  having 
for  its  great  centres  the  churches  supposed  to  be 
founded  by  the  apostles,  among  which  Pome,  the  see 
of  Peter  and  of  Paul,  especially  of  Peter  the  head  of 
the  apostles,  has  the  preeminence  in  dignity  and 
respect — the  jpotiorem  jprincipalitatem ,  to  use  the 
phrase  by  which  Irenaeus  affirms  the  distinguished 
reliability  of  its  traditions.1  Beyond  the  pale  of  this 
Catholic  church  there  is  no  salvation.  The  outlying 
parties  have  no  title  to  the  blessings  of  the  gospel. 
The  church  is  comparatively  pure  in  doctrine  and  free 
in  government ;  yet  the  incipient  and  germinant  Papal 
system  is  clearly  discernible. 


1  Iren.,  Lib.  iii.  c.  3. 


284 


ORIGIN  OF  CATHOLIC  CHRISTIANITY. 


By  what  steps  did  simple,  unorganized,  apostolic 
Christianity  attain  to  this  new  form  ?  What  agencies 
effected  the  transformation  ?  Such  is  the  problem  to 
which  we  refer.  It  involves  the  whole  question  of  the 
character  of  the  Christianity  of  the  apostolic  age,  as 
well  as  the  nature  of  the  changes  it  afterwards  under¬ 
went.  It  has  drawn  to  itself  of  late,  in  particular 
since  the  rise  of  the  new  Tubingen  school  of  historical 
critics,  the  zealous  attention  of  scholars. 

One  principal  topic,  the  consideration  of  which 
involves  the  most  important  inquiries  connected  with 
the  whole  subject,  is  Ebionitism.  Ebionitism  is  the 
general  designation  of  that  judaizing  Christianity 
which  existed  during  the  first  centuries,  in  several 
distinct  parties,  in  separation  from  the  Catholic 
church.  The  strict  Ebionites — the  vulgar  Ebionites, 
as  they  are  called  in  the  classification  of  some  German 
writers — not  only  observed  the  Mosaic  ritual,  but 
refused  to  fellowship  any  who  failed  to  do  likewise. 
The  Nazarenes,  another  party,  though  observing  the 
law  themselves,  willingly  left  the  Gentiles  to  the  enjoy¬ 
ment  of  their  freedom.  The  former  party  was  hostile 
to  Paul  and  his  doctrine  ;  the  latter  was  not.  Both 
made  use  of  Hebrew  or  Aramaic  versions  of  the 
Gospel  of  Matthew,  differing  somewhat,  however,  from 
that  Gospel,  as  they  differed  somewhat  from  each 
other.  There  was  a  third  party,  also,  of  theosophic  or 
gnostical  Ebionites,  described  by  Epiphanius  and 
represented  in  the  Clementine  Homilies,  a  spurious 


EBIONITISM. 


285 


work  of  the  latter  part  of  the  second  century.  It  is 
an  old  and  often-repeated  assertion  that  primitive, 
apostolic  Christianity — that  Christianity  which  was 
established  and  fostered  by  the  immediate  followers 
of  Christ — was  Ebionite.  This  proposition  was 
maintained  by  Socinian  writers  of  a  former  day,  who, 
considering  the  Ebionites  to  have  been  Unitarians, 
inferred  that  the  early  Christians  held  the  humanita¬ 
rian  view  of  Christ’s  person.  Hence  the  character 
and  opinions  of  the  Ebionite  parties  come  up  for 
discussion  in  the  polemical  writings  of  Bull,  who 
combats  the  views  of  Zwicker,  and  in  the  spirited 
controversy,  in  the  last  century,  of  Horsley  with 
Priestley.  The  subject  was  handled  in  a  special 
dissertation  by  Mosheim,  in  an  early  essay  of  great 
merit  by  Gieseler,  and  has  been  further  illustrated  by 
Neander  and  the  other  masters  in  the  department  of 
church  history.  Of  late  the  historical  speculations  of 
Baur  have  provoked  new  and  fruitful  investigations  in 
the  same  field,  and  have  called  forth  numerous  publica¬ 
tions,  both  from  his  followers  and  opponents. 

In  stating  the  theory  of  Baur  upon  this  subject 
and  upon  early  Christianity  in  general,  we  may  remark 
at  the  outset  that  he  agrees  with  the  old  Socinians  in 
the  statement  that  the  Jewish  Christianity  of  the 
apostolic  age  was  Ebionite.  But,  unlike  them,  he 
holds  that  we  find  within  the  canon  a  great  departure 
from,  and  advance  upon,  this  humanitarian  doctrine 
of  Christ’s  person.  He  professes  to  discern  in  the 


286 


ORIGIN  OF  CATHOLIC  CHRISTIANITY. 


New  Testament  the  consecutive  stages  of  a  progress, 
which,  beginning  with  the  Unitarian  creed,  terminates 
in  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  proper  divinity.  To  be 
sure,  a  considerable  portion  of  these  canonical  writings, 
including  all  those  which  contain  this  last  tenet,  he 
pronounces  post-apostolic  and  spurious.  But  he 
differs  very  widely  from  the  Socinians  in  his  exegesis 
of  them,  and  approximates  nearer,  especially  in  regard 
to  the  sense  of  the  writings  of  John,  to  the  ordinary 
orthodox  interpretations.  Baur’s  general  theory 
proceeds  on  the  foundation  of  the  hostility  conceived 
to  exist,  in  the  apostolic  age,  between  the  Pauline  and 
Petrine  parties.  In  the  study  of  the  Epistles  to  the 
Corinthians,  he  supposed  himself  to  have  discovered 
that  the  long  prevalent  idea  of  the  relation  of  Paul  to 
the  rest  of  the  apostles,  and  of  his  doctrine  to  theirs,  is 
mistaken  ;  and  for  this  new  view  he  found  support,  as 
he  thought,  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians.1  While 
the  original  apostles  insisted  that  the  Gentile  converts 
should  be  circumcised  and  keep  the  law,  Paul  looked 
on  circumcision  as  involving  a  forfeiture  of  the  benefits 
of  the  gospel.  Baur  carries  out  his  novel  thesis  with 
relentless  consistency.  He  denies  the  Pauline  author¬ 
ship  of  all  of  the  epistles  usually  ascribed  to  Paul, 
except  four,  and  the  genuineness  of  all  the  other  books 
of  the  New  Testament,  except  the  Apocalypse.  The 

1  For  an  interesting  account  of  the  growth  of  his  critical  theory 
in  his  own  mind,  see  Baur’s  posthumous  GescJiicTite  des  19 tn.  Jahrh 
s.  395  seq. 


baur’s  theory.  287 

Gospels,  as  to  a  part  of  their  contents,  are  either 
monuments  of  this  great  division  in  the  Church,  or  of 
the  attempts  to  heal  it.  The  Gospel  of  John  is  a 
fictitious  product  of  the  early  part  of  the  second 
century.  The  Acts  is  the  work  of  a  Pauline  Chris¬ 
tian  of  about  the  same  date,  who  misrepresents  the 
apostolic  history  for  the  sake  of  reconciling  to  each 
other  the  partisans  of  Peter  and  of  Paul.  At  the  close 
of  the  apostolic  age,  or  at  the  death  of  these  lead¬ 
ers,  the  Church  had  been  left  in  this  divided  state. 
The  Gentile  or  Pauline  Christians,  and  the  Jewish 
Christians,  formed  two  opposing  camps.1 

We  cannot  enter  into  a  detailed  refutation  of  these 
fundamental  positions  of  Baur,  without  repeating  what 
we  have  said  in  another  place.  The  assumption  that 
the  older  apostles  required  that  the  heathen  converts 
should  be  circumcised,  and  that  Paul  directly  resisted 
the  observance  of  the  law  by  Jewish  Christians  as 
inconsistent  with  the  Christian  faith,  is  unproved  and 
groundless.  The  mutual  alienation  of  the  Jerusalem 
apostles  on  the  one  hand,  and  of  Paul  on  the  other,  is 
a  figment  of  the  imagination  ;  as  is  shown  by  the 
direct  testimony  of  Paul  himself  in  documents  which  _ 
even  Baur  admits  to  be  his.2  The  main  objection  to 
the  credibility  of  the  Acts  is  thus  annulled.  The 
positive  proof  of  the  genuineness  of  this  book,  as  well 

1  For  the  full  and  final  statement  of  Baur’s  positions,  see  his 
Christenthum  in  d.  drei  ersten  Jahrh .,  2  A.  1SG0. 

2  Gal.  ii.  9,  10 ;  1  Cor.  xv.  9,  xvi.  1,  et  al. 


288 


ORIGIN  OF  CATHOLIC  CHRISTIANITY. 


as  of  the  rejected  epistles  of  Paul,  is  abundant.  The 
historical  speculations  of  the  Tubingen  school,  being 
built  upon  a  false  foundation,  fall  of  themselves. 
There  were,  indeed,  strong  peculiarities  belonging 
severally  to  the  two  branches  of  the  Church  in  the 
lifetime  of  Paul ;  but  with  the  exception  of  the 
judaizing  party,  there  was  no  hostility  between  them. 
On  the  contrary,  especially  among  the  leaders,  there 
was  a  cordial  fellowship. 

But  at  present  we  are  concerned  with  the  Tubin¬ 
gen  theory  so  far  as  it  relates  to  the  Church  of  the 
sub-apostolic  age.  Baur  pretends  that  after  the  death 
of  Paul,  there  ensued  the  process  of  reconciliation 
between  the  two  belligerent  parties,  to  promote  which, 
as  we  have  explained  above,  most  of  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  boohs  were  contrived.  The  Jewish  Christians 
gave  up  circumcision,  being  satisfied  with  baptism, 
when  regarded  as  necessary  for  salvation.  Exactly 
how  and  when  this  remarkable  step  wras  taken,  we 
are  not  informed.  But  most  of  the  concessions  were 
from  the  Pauline  side.  In  fact,  there  occurred  at  the 
end,  or  before  the  end,  of  the  apostolic  age,  a  reaction 
of  the  Jewish  Christianity,  which  with  Baur  is  iden¬ 
tical  with  the  judaizing  or  Ebionite  element,  and  this 
type  of  Christianity  prevailed  through  the  larger  part 
of  the  second  century.  In  the  church  of  Asia  Minor, 
little  or  no  value  was  set  upon  the  authority  and  the 
doctrine  of  Paul,  which  were  supplanted  by  the 
Ebionite  views  of  Christianity.  The  same  was  true 


BAUR  S  THEORY. 


289 


of  the  Roman  church,  which  Baur  claims  to  have 
been,  even  at  the  beginning,  chiefly  composed  of 
believing  Jews.  The  diffusion  and  reception  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  authority  of  tradition,  of  legal  justifica¬ 
tion,  of  the  saving  efficacy  of  rites,  of  the  superior 
merit  of  ascetic  piety,  of  the  clergy  as  a  priestly  class, 
of  the  primacy  of  Peter,  and  of  other  elements  of 
Catholic  theology,  the  Tubingen  critics  attribute  to 
the  great  reaction  and  partial  triumph  of  the  Jewish  - 
Christian,  anti-Pauline  party.  So  tenacious  of  life, 
we  are  told,  was  Judaism,  that  the  powerful  influence 
of  the  Apostle  Paul  was,  to  a  large  extent,  neutralized 
and  overcome  by  the  revived  power  of  the  judaical 
element  in  the  Church.  Not  that  the  Pauline  element 
was  ineffective.  It  was  not  without  its  representatives, 
and  played  a  not  unimportant  part  in  the  ferment 
from  which  Catholic  theology  resulted.  Of  course, 
these  views  of  Baur  affect  his  construction  of  the 
history  of  the  doctrines  concerning  the  Person  of 
Christ  and  the  Trinity.  The  first  view  of  the  Church 
respecting  Christ  was  humanitarian.  Then  followed, 
according  to  Baur,  the  other  form  of  Monarchianism, 
the  Patripassian  theory.  The  Logos  doctrine  was  the 
intermediate,  compromising  theology,  which  was  finally 
developed  into  the  dogma  of  the  Saviour’s  true  and 
proper  divinity,  and  the  Nicene  formulary.1 

The  topics  which  we  propose  to  examine  in  the 

1  On  this  branch  of  Baur’s  theory,  besides  his  u  Christianity  in  the 
first  Three  Centuries,”  which  has  been  referred  to  above,  see  Ms 

19 


290  ORIGIN  OF  CATHOLIC  CHRISTIANITY. 

remarks  that  follow,  are,  first,  the  alleged  Ebionite 
character  of  the  period  immediately  subsequent  to 
the  apostolic  age,  and  then,  in  particular,  Baur’s 
representation  of  the  early  doctrine  concerning 
Christ. 

I.  One  marked  vice  of  the  Tubingen  critics  is  the 
habit  of  attributing  to  a  distinctly  Jewish-Christian 
party  or  influence  phenomena  which  more  commonly 
originate  in  other  causes.  The  tendency  to  regard 
Christianity  as  a  system  of  laws,  is  not  peculiar  to  the 
Jews  and  to  Judaism  alone.  This  tendency  develops 
itself  in  other  ages,  even  within  the  bounds  of 
Protestant  Christianity.  Hence,  when  this  spirit 
appears  in  an  early  Christian  writer,  to  charge  it 
forthwith  to  Ebionitism  is  an  obvious  fallacy.  The 
same  may  be  said  of  the  overvaluing  of  external  rites. 
A  tendency  to  formalism  may  spring  up  independently 
of  Jewish  influences  ;  in  the  nineteenth  century  as 
well  as  the  third,  in  modern  Oxford  as  well  as  ancient 
Rome.  To  say  that  religious  phenomena,  because 
they  resemble  each  other,  are  historically  connected,  is 
a  rash,  and  frequently  unfounded,  inference.  This 
neglect  to  discriminate  between  what  springs  from  a 
distinctively  judaic  party,  and  what  merely  bears  some 
likeness  to  judaic  principles,  but  only  indicates  an 


extensive  work  on  the  History  of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  Die 
Christl.  Lelire  i\  d.  Dreieiniglceit  u.  Menschwerdung  Gottes  in  Hirer 
gescMchtlichen  Entwiclcl.  (1841),  B.  I. ;  and  his  Dogmengeschichte , 
2  A.  (1858),  s.  104-112,  126-130. 


REFUTATION  OF  BAUR. 


291 


analogous  way  of  thinking,  runs  through  much  of 
the  Tubingen  criticism,  as  we  shall  hereafter  illustrate. 

But  what  are  the  proofs  by  which  Baur  would 
subvert  the  established  views  of  early  Christian  history 
and  verify  his  own  hypothesis  ?  In  following  the 
Tubingen  critics  through  their  classification  of  the 
ancient  writers,  we  are  constantly  struck  with  the 
arbitrary  character  of  the  procedure.  To  make  out 
that  the  Ebionite  type  of  doctrine  belongs  to  an  early 
Bather,  they  are  under  the  necessity  of  ignoring 
expressions  which  are  at  war  with  such  a  view,  and 
of  magnifying  the  significance  of  artless  phrases  to 
which  no  emphasis  is  properly  attached.  One  sign 
of  the  justice  of  our  remark  is  the  fact  that  these 
critics  differ  so  widely  among  themselves  in  respect 
to  the  place  to  be  assigned  to  the  different  writers — 
even  to  such  a  writer  as  Justin  Martyr.  Baur  is 
constantly  obliged  to  mediate  between  his  two 
disciples,  Schwegler  and  Bitschl,  and  to  interpose 
the  weight  of  his  decision  where  these  younger  doctors 
disagree.  Let  us  examine  the  proofs  and  witnesses 
which  are  adduced  to  establish  the  predominantly 
Ebionite  character  of  the  early  Church.  Even  Cle¬ 
ment  of  Rome,  or  the  first  epistle  which  bears  his  name, 
but  which,  wholly  without  reason,  is  denied  by  the 
Tubingen  critics  to  be  genuine,  is  made  to  stand  on  a 
neutral  or  half-way  position  between  the  Ebionite  and 
Pauline  doctrine — Clement,  who  speaks  of  justification 
as  “  not  by  ourselves,  neither  by  our  own  wisdom,  or 


292 


ORIGIN  OE  CATHOLIC  CHRISTIANITY. 


knowledge,  or  piety,  or  the  works  which  we  have  done 
in  the  holiness  of  our  hearts ;  but  by  that  faith  by 
which  God  Almighty  has  justified  all  men  from  the 
beginning  ;'y  1  who  alludes  to  the  epistle  which  tc  the 
blessed  Paul  the  apostle  had  written  to  the  Corinthians 
before ;  ” 2  and  whose  view  of  Christ  is  so  dissonant 
in  spirit  from  that  of  the  Ebionite  !  It  is  true  that 
he  associates  Peter,  as  a  martyr  to  be  held  in  honor, 
with  Paul.3  And  why  should  he  not  ?  It  is  true 
that  Clement  lays  stress  upon  the  practical  duties  of 
Christians,  and  often  connects  obedience  with  faith.4 
But  the  reason  of  this  is  found  in  the  disturbed  state 
of  the  Corinthian  church,  and  the  disaffection  towards 
its  officers.5  Whoever  will  read  the  epistle  from 
beginning  to  end  will  see  that  here  is  the  motive  for 
the  enforcing  of  practical  obligations,  in  conjunction 
with  passages  obviously  derived,  though  not  verbally 
cited,  from  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 

Papias,  in  the  fragments  cited  by  Eusebius,  is 
another  of  Baur’s  witnesses  for  the  Ebionitism  of  the 
early  Church.  It  is  thought  to  be  highly  significant 
that  in  the  scriptural  books  which  are  mentioned  by 
Eusebius  as  having  been  cited  by  Papias,  the  Pauline 
epistles  are  not  found  ;  nor  is  it  stated  that  Papias 
made  mention  of  Paul.  As  if  Eusebius  professed  to 
give  all  the  canonical  books  to  which  Papias  made 
reference,  or  Papias  made  reference  to  all  the  canonical 

1  C.  32.  2  0.  47.  3  0.  5. 

4  C.  10,  11,  12,  et  passim.  6  See  C.  1,  48,  etc. 


REFUTATION  OF  BAUR. 


293 


books  which  he  received !  Of  Polycarp,  in  like 
manner,  Eusebius  says  that  he  made  use,  in  his  Epistle 
to  the  Philippians,  of  the  1st  Epistle  of  Peter ; 1  but 
we  know,  though  Eusebius  does  not  mention  the  fact, 
that  he  also  made  abundant  use  of  the  Epistles  of 
Paul.2  Eusebius  had  reasons  of  his  own  for  specifying 
certain  books  in  these  allusions  to  the  use  of  the 
Scriptures  by  earlier  writers.  We  are  not  authorized 
to  suppose  that  he  intends  to  give  an  exhaustive  list. 
The  insinuation  of  a  hostility  to  Paul  on  the  part  of 
Papias  hardly  merits  a  serious  refutation.  If  he  did 
not  explicitly  mention  this  apostle  in  his  “  Exposition 
of  the  Oracles  of  the  Lord  ” — and  whether  he  did  or 
not  we  have  no  means  of  deciding — it  would  not  be 
strange,  since  his  aim  was  to  gather  up  unrecorded 
reminiscences  of  the  life  and  teachings  of  Jesus.  His 
chiliasm,  or  milieu arianism,  is  very  far  from  proving 
him  an  Ebionite.  He  shared  this  doctrine  not  only 
with  Justin  Martyr  and  Irenaeus,  but  even  with 
Barnabas,  whom  all  the  skeptical  writers  put  on  the 
Pauline  side.  Although  chiliasm  cannot  be  shown  to 
have  been  the  universal  belief  of  the  Church  in  the 
next  age  after  the  apostles,  it  was,  without  doubt,  a 
very  widely  diffused  opinion.  It  is  not  at  all  confined, 
however,  to  writers  of  a  single  school.  In  truth,  as 
Horner  has  clearly  shown  and  we  may  stop  here  to 
observe,  chiliasm,  whatever  may  have  been  the  first 

1  Euseb.,  Lib.  iv.  c.  14. 

2  See,  for  example,  in  Polyc.  ad  Philip .,  c.  v.  (1  Cor.  vi.  9,  10). 


294 


ORIGIN  OF  CATHOLIC  CHRISTIANITY. 


source  of  the  belief,  was  widely  diverse  from  the 
current  Jewish  expectation  of  a  temporal  reign  of  the 
Messiah.1  The  earthly  reign  of  Christ  after  the  second 
advent,  even  in  the  view  of  those  inclined  to  conceive 
of  the  millennial  period  in  too  material  a  way,  was  a 
limited  time,  and  was  to  be  followed  by  a  spiritual, 
heavenly  life,  to  continue  forever.  But — to  return  to 
Papias — we  need  no  other  proof  that  he  was  not  an 
Ebionite  and  had  no  inimical  feeling  towards  Paul, 
than  his  friendship  with  Polycarp,2  and  the  circum¬ 
stance  that  Irenaeus,  and  Eusebius  after  him,  with  the 
writings  of  Papias  before  them,  have  no  quarrel  with 
him,  except  that  Eusebius,  as  we  should  expect, 
objects  to  his  chiliastic  notions,  and  considers  him, 
probably  on  account  of  them,  a  man  of  limited  under¬ 
standing.3  Indeed,  the  circumstance  which  Eusebius 
mentions,  that  Papias  made  use  of  testimonies  from 
the  1st  Epistle  of  John  and  the  1st  Epistle  of  Peter,  is 
of  itself  conclusive  against  the  Tubingen  judgment 
concerning  him. 

Still  more  reliance  is  placed  by  Baur  and  his 
followers  on  the  evidence  drawn  from  the  fragments 
of  Hegesippus.  This  earliest  historian  of  the  Church 
came  to  Borne  about  the  middle  of  the  second  century. 
He  was  an  Ebionite,  it  is  claimed  ;  and  as  he  had 


1  Dorner’s  EntwicJcelungsgeschichte  d.  Lehre  v.  d.  Person  Christi , 
B.  I.  s.  240  seq.  See  especially  s.  240,  N.  76. 

2  Irenaeus  calls  Papias  a  friend  ( [ircupos )  of  Polycarp. 

3  Euseb.,  Lib.  iii.  c.  39. 


REFUTATION  OF  BAUR. 


295 


travelled  extensively  for  the  purpose  of  visiting  the 
'  churches,  and  had  found  them,  according  to  his  own 
statement,  agreeing  in  doctrine,  it  is  confidently 
asserted  that  the  churches  east  and  west,  including 
the  Roman  church,  which  he  especially  commends, 
were  also  Ebionite.  This  deduction  might  be  just, 
were  the  premise  established.  But  what  is  the  proof 
that  Hegesippus  was  an  Ebionite  ?  In  the  first  place, 
much  is  made  of  the  description,  quoted  by  Eusebius, 
of  the  character  of  James,  the  head  of  the  church  at 
Jerusalem,  in  which  he  is  made  out  a  punctilious 
observer  of  ceremonies.1  That  this  fictitious  por¬ 
traiture  accords  with  Ebionite  taste,  is  granted.  It 
is  probable,  however,  that  Hegesippus  derived  it  from 
an  Ebionite  tradition.  That  die  himself  followed  such 
a  pattern  of  life,  there  is  no  more  reason  to  think 
than  there  is  to  suppose  the  same  of  Gregory  Nazian- 
zen,  who  gives  a  similar  description  of  Peter,  and 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  who  gives  a  similar  description 
of  Matthew,  both  of  which  were  also  probably  bor¬ 
rowed  from  Ebionite  sources.2  But  Hegesippus 
reports  that  in  every  city  “  the  doctrine  prevails 
according  to  what  is  declared  by  the  law,  and  the 
prophets,  and  the  Lord ;  ” 3  and  this  statement  is 
seized  upon  as  an  undoubted  sign  of  Ebionitism  in 
the  author !  Hegesippus  was  zealous  against  the 


1  Euseb.,  Lib.  ii.  c.  23. 

2  See  Scbliemann,  Die  Glementinen ,  s.  429. 

3  Euseb.,  Lib.  iv.  c.  22. 


296 


ORIGIN  OF  CATHOLIC  CHRISTIANITY. 


Gnostics,  and  this  mention  of  the  Old  Testament, 
which,  however,  would  not  be  remarkable  in  any  case; 
was  very  natural,  it  being  a  part  of  his  testimony  to 
the  freedom  of  the  churches  from  the  taint  of  gnostical 

But  there  is  another  passage  from  Hegesippus 
which  was  quoted  by  the  Monophysite,  Stephen  Go- 
barus,  and  is  found  in  Photius,  in  which  he  says  that 
those  who  affirm  that  “  eye  hath  not  seen  nor  ear 
heard,  nor  hath  it  entered  into  the  heart  of  man,  the 
good  things  prepared  for  the  just,”  maintain  what  is 
false  and  that  this  declaration  is  itself  foolish.  Plere, 
we  are  assured  by  the  Tubingen  critics,  is  a  direct 
condemnation  of  an  expression  of  the  Apostle  Paul, 
and  a  condemnation  of  the  apostle  himself.  Sup¬ 
posing  Hegesippus  to  be  quoted  right,  it  is  still  not 
easy  to  judge  of  the  real  intent  of  a  passage  which  is 
thus  torn  from  its  connection.  There  is  little  reason 
to  doubt,  however,  that  Hegesippus  is  attacking  a 
gnostical  interpretation  or  application  of  the  passage, 
as  was  long  ago  conjectured.  In  the  sense  in  which 
the  Gnostics  employed  the  expression,  he  might  call  it 
foolish.  That  he  could  not  have  designed  to  attack  a 
statement  of  Paul,  is  demonstrated,  first  by  the 
circumstance  that  Paul  himself  quotes  the  passage  in 
question  from  Isaiah,  and  a  censure  of  the  apostle 
would  involve  a  rebuke  of  the  prophet ;  and,  secondly, 
by  the  fact  that  in  Clement’s  epistle  to  the  Corin¬ 
thians,  which  is  approved  by  Hegesippus,  this  identical 


REFUTATION  OF  BAUR. 


297 


passage  of  Scripture  is  also  found.1  Hegesippus  is, 
rather,  a  witness  against  Baur’s  theory.  He  says 
that  the  Church  was  united  and  unpolluted  by  heresy 
until  the  apostles  and  the  generation  taught  by  them 
had  passed  away.2  How  does  this  accord  with  the 
idea  that  the  church  of  the  apostolic  age  was  rent  in 
twain,  and  that  Paul  was  considered  then  by  the 
Jewish  Christians  to  be  a  leader  of  heresy  ?  “  If  there 

were  any  at  all/'  adds  Hegesippus,  “  that  attempted  to 
subvert  the  sound  doctrine  of  the  saving  gospel,  they 
were  yet  skulking  in  dark  retreats.”  The  surmise  of 
Baur,  that  this  expression  relates  to  Paul,  is  so  plainly 
a  desperate  effort  to  escape  from  a  difficulty,  that  it 
requires  no  answer.  How  far  from  Ebionitism 
Hegesippus  was,  though  probably  a  Hebrew  Christian 
by  birth,  is  evinced  by  his  tracing  even  the  gnostical 
heresies  to  a  Jewish  origin,  by  his  approval  of  Cle¬ 
ment’s  epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  and  by  his  testimony 
that  the  church  of  Corinth,  to  which  Clement  wrote, 
had  “  continued  in  the  true  faith.”  The  same  thing 
is  proved  incontrovertibly  to  the  sober  student  of 
history  by  the  simple  fact  that  Eusebius,  himself 
hostile  to  Ebionitism,  and  surely  not  less  able  to 
detect  its  presence  than  any  critic  of  the  Tubingen 
school,  and  with  the  whole  work  of  Hegesippus  before 
him,  speaks  of  this  old  writer  with  entire  respect  and 
approbation. 

Against  Hernias  the  charge  of  Ebionitism  can  be 

2  Euseb.,  Lib.  iii.  c.  32. 


1  Clement’s  I.  Cor.  c.  xxxiv. 


298 


ORIGIN  OF  CATHOLIC  CHRISTIANITY. 


made  with  more  plausibility ;  but  even  with  reference 
to  him  it  cannot  be  sustained.  Although  he  does  in 
terms  make  faith  the  parent  of  all  Christian  virtues, 
yet  in  his  far-fetched  and  long-drawn  allegories  the 
gospel  is  generally  presented  in  a  legal  aspect,  as  a 
system  of  commands,  on  obeying  which  salvation 
hinges.  Moreover  the  idea  of  fasting  as  a  meritorious 
act,  and  a  general  tendency  to  asceticism,  correspond  to 
certain  features  of  Ebionitism.  But  we  have  here  to 
reiterate  the  observation  that  was  made  before,  that 
legalism  and  asceticism  spring  up  in  the  Church  from 
other  causes  than  the  influence  of  Judaism.  Such  is 
the  fact  in  the  case  of  Hennas  and  of  the  Church  in 
the  second  century  so  far  as  it  sympathized  with  his 
type  of  thinking.  In  Hernias  there  is  no  exaltation  of 
the  Jews  as  a  nation,  no  recognition  of  their  national 
pretensions,  no  ascription  to  them  of  a  preeminence  in 
privileges  and  hopes.  Hence,  however  he  may  resem 
ble  the  Ebionites  in  sundry  points  of  doctrine,  he  is 
wholly  distinct  from  them  in  historical  position.  A 
decisive  proof  that  Hernias  is  not  an  Ebionite,  is  the 
doctrine  he  holds  concerning  Christ,  to  whom  he 
attributes  preexistence  and  a  part  in  the  creation  of 
the  world.  Another  very  striking  proof  of  the  same 
thing — a  proof  that  his  ritualism  did  not  spring  from 
an  Ebionite  root — is  his  notion  that  the  Old  Testament 
saints  will  have  to  be  baptized  by  the  apostles  in  the 
underworld,  in  order  to  be  saved  ! 1 

1  Pastor  Hermae ,  Liber  III.  Sirnil.  ix.  16.  “Hennas  male  intel- 


REFUTATION  OF  BAUR. 


299 


We  come  now  to  the  main  prop  of  the  Tubingen 
criticism,  the  Pseudo-Clementine  Homilies.  There 
existed  from  the  beginning  of  the  second  century,  in 
parts  of  Palestine  and  the  neighborhood,  a  Jewish- 
Christian  party  called  Elkesaits,  They  were  composed 
of  Ebionite  sectaries,  who  had  probably  fallen  under 
the  influence  of  the  Essenes,  and  whose  creed  was  a 
compound  of  their  old  belief  and  their  newly-gained 
ascetic  tenets.1  The  Spirit  of  God  had  united  itself, 
they  held,  with  Adam,  constituting  thus  the  true 
prophet,  and  afterwards  with  a  series  of  individuals — - 
Enoch,  Noah,  Abraham,  Isaac,  Jacob,  Moses,  Jesus — - 
who  all  tan  Nit  in  substance  the  same  truth.  Chris- 

O 

tianity  was  thus  regarded  as  the  restoration  of  the 
primeval  religion,  with  which,  also,  primitive  and  pure 
Judaism  was  identical.  The  Elkesaits  abjured  the 
eating  of  flesh,  and  discarded  sacrifices,  which  were 

ligens  verba  Apostoli  I  Petr.  3.  19  haec  scripsisse  videtur,”  says 
Iiefele  in  his  note,  p.  424. 

1  Gieseler  attributes  the  theosophic  ingredients  of  the  Elkesait 
system  to  the  influence  of  the  Essenes.  Schliemann,  following 
Neander,  would  account  for  the  same  by  the  fusion  of  oriental 
elements  with  Judaism.  But  according  to  Neander,  as  Gieseler 
points  out,  Essenism  itself  is  partly  the  product  of  this  very  fusion. 
See  Gieselbr’s  K.  G.,  B.  I.  §  32.  n.  9. 

The  best  edition  of  the  Homilies  is  that  of  A.  Dressel  (1853). 
This  edition  contains  the  last  two  Homilies,  which  are  not  found  in 
the  edition  of  Cotelerius.  A  very  thorough  monogram  on  the  whole 
subject  of  the  Pseudo-Clementine  waitings  is  “  Die  Clementinen  ” 
of  A.  Schliemann  (1844).  Uhlhorn,  the  author  of  a  later  work  on 
the  same  subject,  gives  a  condensed  statement  of  his  views  in  Her¬ 
zog’s  Real-Eneyc.,  Art.  Clementinen. 


300 


ORIGIN  OF  CATHOLIC  CHRISTIANITY. 


held  to  have  come  in  through  a  corruption  of  the  true 
religion.  They  advocated  the  obligation  to  renounce 
riches.  The  forgiveness  of  sins  was  procured  by 
baptism,  which,  as  it  would  appear,  was  often 
repeated.  They  rejected,  among  other  scriptures,  the 
Pauline  Epistles. 

The  Pseudo-Clementine  Homilies,  which  were 
written  by  some  Roman  towards  the  end  of  the  second 
century,  bring  forward,  with  additions  and  modifica¬ 
tions,  the  same  tenets.  The  work  falsely  pretends  to 
emanate  from  Clement,  the  first  bishop  of  the  Roman 
church  after  the  apostles,  who,  being  confounded, 
doubtless,  with  Flavius  Clement,  the  relative  of  Ho- 
mitian,  is  represented  as  a  cultivated  Roman  of  rank. 
Impelled  by  a  thirst  for  truth,  which  he  had  sought  in 
vain,  he  journeys  to  the  east,  and  through  the  agency 
of  Barnabas  is  introduced  to  Peter,  whose  instruction 
fully  satisfies  his  mind,  and  who  is  made,  in  the  room 
of  Paul,  the  real  apostle  to  the  Gentiles,  the  founder 
and  first  bishop  of  the  Roman  church.  Peter  is 
portrayed  as  the  antagonist  of  all  sorts  of  errors, 
especially  of  the  Gnostics  in  the  person  of  Simon 
Magus.  He  combats,  also,  Chiliasm,  the  Hypostatic 
Trinity,  and  Montanism.  Paul,  though  not  mentioned 
by  name,  is  made  the  adversary  of  Peter,  and  is 
regarded  with  hostility.  Peter  is  made  to  teach  the 
Elkesait  doctrine  of  a  primitive  religion  which  was 
afterwards  corrupted ;  of  the  identity  of  the  true 
Mosaic  system  with  Christianity  ;  of  the  seven  men, 


REFUTATION  OF  BAUR. 


301 


together  with  Jesus,  in  whom  the  true  prophet  was 
manifest ;  of  opposition  to  sacrifices,  abstinence  from 
eating  flesh,  voluntary  poverty,  and  frequent  fasts  and 
baptisms.  In  conjunction  with  these  views,  other 
notions  are  found.  The  earthly  kingdom  with  Satan, 
its  head,  is  set  in  antithesis  to  the  heavenly  kingdom, 
both  forming  together  a  pair ;  and  a  similar  contrast 
or  coupling  is  carried,  in  a  series,  through  the  whole 
history  of  the  world  and  of  man.  Thus,  Adam  was 
endowed  with  all  intellectual  and  moral  gifts,  but  from 
him  proceeded  the  woman,  the  source  of  sensuousness 
and  weakness.  So,  along  with  the  true  prophet,  false 
prophets  are  always  found  to  pervert  the  truth.  The 
hierarchical  theory  is  decidedly  supported,  but  chili- 
asm  is  opposed.  Interwoven  with  the  work  is  a  not 
unattractive  story,  embracing  the  personal  fortunes  of 
Clement ;  and  the  whole  is  commended  to  credence 
by  accompanying  vouchers  :  a  letter  of  Peter  entrust¬ 
ing  his  discourses  to  James  at  Jerusalem,  who  is 
represented  as  the  head-bishop  of  the  whole  Church  ; 
an  attestation  that  the  trust  was  faithfully  discharged 
by  James  ;  and  a  letter  of  Clement  to  James,  purport¬ 
ing  to  be  written  after  the  death  of  Peter,  and  trans¬ 
mitting  the  work  which  Clement  had  composed  by  his 
direction. 

At  a  later  period,  it  seems  to  have  been  thought 
that  the  Homilies  were  a  work  actually  composed  by 
Clement,  but  corrupted  and  interpolated  by  heretics. 
Accordingly,  early  in  the  third  century,  some  one. 


302 


ORIGIN  OF  CATHOLIC  CHRISTIANITY. 


probably  an  Alexandrian,  undertook  to  clear  them 
of  supposed  interpolations  and  restore  them  to  the 
original  form.  The  product  was  the  so-called  Recog¬ 
nitions  of  Clement.  The  Epitome  is  the  result  of  a 
still  later  revision.1 

Strange  to  say,  the  Clementine  Homilies,  a  spu¬ 
rious  production,  the  work  of  an  unknown  writer,  and 
abounding  in  fantastic,  anti-Christian  ideas  which 
could  never  have  gained  the  assent  of  a  sober-minded 
Christian,  is  made  by  Baur  a  sort  of  text-book  for  the 
illustration  of  the  opinions  of  the  Roman  church,  and 
of  the  churches  generally,  in  the  second  century.  Its 
authority  is  deemed  sufficient,  on  many  points,  to 
outweigh  the  testimony  of  the  approved  writers  who 
have  heretofore  been  depended  on  by  scholars  of  all 
theological  affinities.  Because  this  work  is  Ebionite 
and  anti-Pauline,  such  must  have  been  the  prevailing 
Christianity  of  the  time  ! 

But  the  Clementine  Homilies  represented  the 
opinions  of  an  individual  and  not  the  sentiments  of 
any  important  body  of  Christians.  Not  until  after  the 
Homilies  were  written  did  the  party  whose  notions 
were,  to  a  considerable  extent,  embodied  in  them, 
obtain  adherents  in  Asia  Minor,  Cyprus,  or  Rome. 
Hence  Origen,  who  was  acquainted  with  the  church 
at  Rome,  as  well  as  with  the  churches  elsewhere, 
speaks  of  this  party  as  having  “  lately  arisen.”  2  The 

1  See  Gieseler’s  K.  G.,  B.  I.  s.  285. 

2  Origen  in  Euseb.,  Lib.  vi.  c.  38. 


REFUTATION  OF  BAUR. 


303 


most  plausible  and  best  supported  hypothesis  which 
we  have  met  with,  concerning  the  origin  of  this  unique 
work,  is  that  presented  by  Gieseler.  The  Roman 
church,  as  is  well  known,  in  the  early  centuries  was 
far  more  practical  than  speculative.  Instead  of 
originating  theological  discussions,  it  gave  a  hearing 
to  the  more  intellectual  and  versatile  theolotmes  of  the 
East.  In  the  second  century  in  particular,  Rome  was 
the  place  to  which  theological  sectaries  resorted  in 
order  to  gain,  if  possible,  countenance  from  the 
influential  church  of  the  metropolis.  In  such  a  state 
of  things  it  was  natural  that  many  should  become 
unsettled  in  their  faith  and  unable  to  satisfy  them¬ 
selves  upon  disputed  questions.  Among  these  was  a 
young  Roman,  educated  in  philosophy,  who  deter¬ 
mined  to  resort  to  Palestine,  and  seek  for  the  truth 
among  the  remnants  of  the  original,  Judaean  church. 
Palling  in  with  the  Elkesaits,  he  conceived  himself  to 
possess  in  their  tenets  a  satisfactory  system,  and  one 
on  which  divergent  parties  could  be  united.  In 
opposing  Gnostics  and  other  parties  with  whom  the 
Elkesaits  had  not  come  in  contact,  he  was  naturally 
led  to  amplify  and  modify  the  doctrine  which  he  had 
learned,  and  to  blend  with  it  the  results  of  his  own 
speculation.  This  mode  of  accounting  for  the  Homilies 
lias  the  merit  of  being  consistent  with  the  known 
facts,  and  the  bare  statement  of  it  will  suggest  how 
entirely  exaggerated  is  the  Tubingen  estimate  of  the 
significance  of  the  work. 


304 


ORIGIN  or  CATHOLIC  CHRISTIANITY. 


The  method  which  these  critics  adopt  in  dealing 
with  the  authorities  from  which  the  early  history  of  the 
Church  is  to  be  deduced,  we  may  illustrate  by  a 
modern  parallel.  Towards  the  close  of  the  American 
Revolution,  there  appeared  in  London  a  history  of 
Connecticut,  from  the  pen  of  Rev.  Samuel  Peters, 
who  had  been  a  missionary  in  Hebron  in  that  State, 
but  had  left  the  country  in  consequence  of  the 
unpopularity  he  had  incurred  by  taking  the  side  of 
the  English  Government.  This  work,  though  pref¬ 
aced  by  protestations  of  fidelity  and  painstaking,  is 
an  odd  mixture  of  fact  and  fiction.  Amoim  other 

O 

fabulous  stories,  Peters  promulgated  the  notion  that 
unrecorded  laws,  which  are  styled  “  blue  laws/’  of  an 
ascetic  and  whimsical  severity,  were  in  force  among 
the  early  Puritans  of  the  colony.  This  singular, 
mendacious  chronicle  is  thought  worthy  to  be  cited, 
though  not  without  some  expressions  of  distrust,  by 
so  recent  an  author  as  the  learned  Dr.  Hussey  in  his 
Bampton  Lectures  upon  the  history  of  the  observance 
of  Sunday.  Now  what  would  be  thought  of  an 
historical  critic,  who  at  some  time  in  the  remote 
future  should  take  Peters  for  the  governing  authority 
in  his  investigation  of  the  ancient  history  of  Connect!- 
cut  ?  Other  documents,  let  it  be  supposed,  are  extant, 
which  have  been  universally  regarded  as  authentic. 
But  these,  together  with  historians  like  Bancroft  and 
Palfrey,  who  lived  much  nearer  the  events  and  were  in 
possession  of  a  great  amount  of  traditionary  and  docu- 


REFUTATION  OF  BAUR. 


305 


mentary  evidence  which  has  since  perished,  he  chooses 
to  set  aside.  Such  a  course  would  match  that  taken 
by  the  critics  who  would  convert  the  Clementine  fiction 
into  an  authority  sufficient  to  override  the  firmest 
historical  testimonies. 

That  a  judaizing  party  had  sway  in  the  Roman 
church  in  the  next  period  after  the  apostolic  age,  is  a 
declaration  made  in  the  face  of  convincing  evidence  to 
the  contrary.  Baur  has  contended  that  the  church  of 
Rome  was  made  up,  at  the  outset,  chiefly  of  Jewish 
converts.  But  this  proposition  is  refuted  by  the 
complexion  of  Paul’s  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  The 
fact  of  his  writing  an  epistle  to  this  church,  which  he 
had  not  personally  planted  and  had  never  visited,  is 
itself  a  strong  presumption  that  the  church  was 
predominantly  Gentile.  The  various  expressions  in 
the  first  chapter,  relative  to  his  calling  to  preach  to  the 
Gentiles  and  his  willingness  to  fulfil  it  even  at  Rome 
(vs.  5,  6,  14,  15),  would  be  out  of  place  in  an  address 
to  born  Jews.  And  how  unnatural  is  the  hypothesis 
that  the  first  eight  chapters  were  written  merely  to 
serve  as  an  introduction  to  the  two  chapters  which 
follow  !  The  observances  of  the  Roman  church  were 
anti- Jewish.  The  custom  grew  up  there  of  fasting  on 
Saturday,  or  of  continuing  the  fast  of  Eriday  through 
the  following  day,  whilst  Sunday  was  made  a  joyous 
festival.  The  Roman  church,  in  the  discussions  of  the 
second  century  concerning  Easter,  took  ground  against 

conforming  to  the  Jewish  calendar  or  continuing  the 

20 


306 


ORIGIN  OF  CATHOLIC  CHRISTIANITY. 


Jewish  festivals.  These  are  undeniable  facts  They 
are  met  by  the  uncertified  conjecture,  that  they  indi¬ 
cate  a  Pauline  reaction  against  the  judaizing  spirit 
which  is  assumed  to  have  prevailed  before  !  But  this 
rejoinder  is  a  subterfuge.  If  arbitrary  conjectures  of 
this  kind  are  to  pass  for  evidence,  there  might  as  well 
be  an  end  of  historical  study. 

The  effort  to  trace  the  hierarchical  theory  and 
system  to  a  distinctively  Jewish- Christian  and  Petrine 
party,  is  not  less  unsuccessful.  There  was,  without 
doubt,  the  transfer  of  the  idea  of  the  Jewish  priest¬ 
hood  to  the  Christian  clergy.  The  analogy  of  the  Old 
Testament  system  was  at  once  a  model,  and  to  some 
extent  a  motive,  which  determined  the  rank  and  func¬ 
tions  of  the  Christian  ecclesiastics.  But  the  Jewish 
prejudice  was  peculiarly  a  national  feeling.  It  was  a 
feeling  of  pride  in  race  and  blood.  This  peculiar 
feeling,  and  the  demands  connected  with  it,  hardly 
admit  of  being  satisfied  by  the  ascription  of  priestly 
prerogatives  to  Gentiles — by  a  seeming  revival  of  the 
old  religious  system,  attended,  however,  by  the  total 
loss  of  national  preeminence.  Jewish  Christians,  to 
be  sure,  might  be  liable  to  confound  Old  Testament 
with  Christian  ideas,  and  transform  the  preacher  into 
the  priest.  This  tendency,  however,  is  to  be  distin¬ 
guished  from  the  technically  judaizing  spirit,  which 
had  its  roots  in  a  national  jealousy.  But  even  the 
Jewish-Christian  feeling  which  was  not  judaizing,  was 
far  from  being  the  controlling  cause  of  that  change  in 


REFUTATION  OF  BAUR. 


307 


Christian  views  which  paved  the  way  for  the  hierar¬ 
chical  system.  Tendencies  to  such  a  system  sprung 
up  on  heathen  soil.  Especially  might  this  be  the  fact 
where  the  Old  Testament,  with  its  Levitical  system, 
was  in  the  hands  of  Christians,  and  when  the  question 
of  the  distinctive  character  of  justification  under  the 
gospel  no  longer  excited  a  living  interest  or  continued 
to  stir  up  controversy.  The  growth  of  the  hierarchy, 
as  a  part  of  doctrinal  belief  and  as  a  practical  system, 
was  imperceptible.  It  was  rather  due  to  the  fact  that 
the  Church  had  become  oblivious  of  the  points  of 
doctrine  on  which  Paul  insisted,  or  of  the  principles 
which  underlie  them,  than  to  any  distinct  exertion  or 
influence  of  an  Ebionite  party. 

But  how  shall  we  explain  the  exalted  rank  which 
was  given  to  Peter,  and  the  position  ascribed  to  him, 
of  principal  founder  of  the  Homan  church?  These 
views,  we  reply,  were  not  inspired  by  any  anti-Pauline 
party.  The  whole  tradition  of  Peter’s  visit  to  Rome 
and  martyrdom  there,  as  well  as  the  later  story  of  his 
episcopal  supremacy  in  the  Roman  church,  is  attribu¬ 
ted  by  the  Tubingen  critics  to  Ebionite  partisanship. 
But  as  to  the  doctrine  of  Peter’s  headship  among  the 
apostles,  it  was  not  the  offspring  of  an  anti-Pauline 
theology.  The  idea  of  the  hierarchy  involved  the  need 
of  an  apostolic  centre  and  head.  And  this  place  was 
naturally  assigned  to  Peter.  The  reading  of  the 
Gospels  and  the  Acts  made  the  impression  that  Peter 
was  the  foremost  of  the  apostles  and  was  constituted 


308 


OKI  GIN  OE  CATHOLIC  CHRISTIANITY. 


their  leader.  Nor  was  this  impression — however  false 
the  doctrine  of  an  essential  difference  of  rank  between 
Peter  and  the  rest  may  be — wholly  unfounded.  Even 
Paul  in  more  than  one  place  seems  to  regard  Peter  as 
the  principal  apostle,  though  a  position  hardly  inferior 
seems  to  be  held  by  James.1  But  the  tradition  of  the 
visit  of  Peter  to  Borne  and  of  his  death  there,  ante¬ 
dates  the  hierarchical  pretensions  of  the  Boinan 
church.  Moreover,  had  the  story  been  originated  by 
a  Petrine  party  in  order  to  depress  the  consideration  of 
Paul,  as  Baur  pretends,  it  would  have  found  instant 
contradiction  from  the  Pauline  party  at  Rome,  instead 
of  being  attested,  as  it  is,  by  the  Presbyter  Caius,  him¬ 
self  a  Christian  zealous  for  the  honor  of  Paul.2  In 
truth,  the  idea  that  Peter  helped  to  found  the  Roman 
church,  and  the  association  of  his  name  with  Paul  in 
this  work,  is  a  sign  that  no  partisanship  respecting  the 
merits  and  claims  of  these  apostles  existed.  The 
notion  that  Peter  was  the  first  bishop  of  the  Roman 
church,  is  something  different  from  the  tradition  of  his 
concern  in  founding  it,  and  was  probably  set  in  cir¬ 
culation  by  the  Pseudo-Clementine  writings ;  first  by 
the  Homilies,  but  especially  by  the  Recognitions, 
which  passed  for  a  genuine  work.  The  inroads  of 
Gnosticism  and  Montanism,  and  other  agencies,  con¬ 
tributed  to  combine  orthodox  Christianity  into  a  more 
compact  body.  As  the  result  of  a  variety  of  causes, 
the  deepest  of  which  lie  in  inherent  tendencies  of 

Gal.  i.  18,  ii.  7,  8. 


2  Euseb.,  Lib.  II.  c.  25. 


REFUTATION  OF  BAUR. 


309 


human  nature,  an  externalized  conception  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  began  more  and  more  to  prevail.  The  great, 
metropolitan  church,  in  the  city  where  Paul  and  Peter 
had  died,  the  only  church  in  the  west  claiming  to  be 
established  and  guided  by  an  apostle,  towered  above 
all  other  western  churches  and  even  above  all  other 
apostolic  sees.  The  idea  of  an  apostolic  primacy  on 
the  part  of  Peter  insensibly  connected  itself  with  the 
story  of  an  episcopal  duty  sustained  by  him  in  the 
Roman  church.  In  these  changes  of  doctrine  and 
organization,  we  recognize,  to  be  sure,  the  establish¬ 
ment  of  a  system  analogous  to  that  of  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment,  and,  in  a  great  degree,  with  more  or  less  con¬ 
sciousness,  modelled  after  it ;  but  we  discern  no  evi¬ 
dence  of  the  presence  of  a  distinct,  controlling  Ebionite 
or  judaizing  party. 

In  the  foregoing  remarks  we  have  not  taken  into 
view  those  important  writings,  the  epistle  of  Barnabas, 
the  epistle  of  Poly  carp,  and  the  Ignatian  epistles,1  the 
prevailing  drift  of  which  is  confessed  to  be  distinctly 
Pauline.2  It  has  been  possible,  as  we  think,  com- 

1  We  may  observe  that  the  genuineness  of  the  shorter  Ignatian 
epistles — though  they  may  have  suffered  interpolation— is  not  now 
impugned  by  judicious  scholars.  After  the  discovery  of  the  Syrian 
version  of  three  of  these  epistles,  Bunsen  came  out  with  the  hasty 
statement  that  only  these,  or  so  much  of  them  as  the  Syrian  version 
contained,  are  genuine.  The  Syrian  translations,  however,  have 
been  proved  to  be  the  product  of  an  abridgment  of  the  Ignatian 
originals,  and  to  afford  no  evidence  whatever  against  the  genuine¬ 
ness  of  the  remaining  four. 

2  See  Schwegler’s  JSTacIiapostolisches  Zeitalter ,  B.  I. 


310 


ORIGIN  OF  CATHOLIC  CHRISTIANITY. 


pletely  to  refute  the  position  of  the  Tubingen  school 
by  a  plain  analysis  of  their  own  evidence.  Nor  have 
we  thought  it  necessary  to  answer  the  criticism  which 
is  quick-scented  enough  to  detect  in  Justin  Martyr  a 
modicum  of  the  judaizing  leaven.  Justin  speaks 
mildly  of  the  more  liberal  Ebionites  who  sought  not 
to  interfere  with  the  freedom  of  the  heathen  con¬ 
verts  ; 1  and  in  the  same  spirit  Paul  would  have 
spoken.  Whoever  will  read  with  an  impartial  eye 
what  Justin  says  of  salvation  by  faith — that  Abraham 
was  justified  “  for  the  faith  which  he  had  being  yet 
in  un circumcision”  2  (a  statement  doubtless  borrowed 
from  Paul),  or  peruse  what  he  says  of  the  sabbaths 
and  fasts  of  the  Jews,3  or  attend  to  his  doctrine  con¬ 
cerning  the  exalted  dignity  of  Christ,  will  need  no 
argument  to  convince  him  that  Justin  had  no  affinity 
with  Ebionitism. 

The  Church  in  the  era  following  the  apostolic  age 
was  not  swayed  by  Ebionitism.  There  was  no  party, 
save  a  party  known  and  recognized  as  heretical,  which 
was  hostile  to  the  Apostle  Paul  or  called  in  question 
his  right  to  be  considered  an  apostle.  However  the 
Church  may  have  gradually  lapsed  from  his  interpreta¬ 
tion  of  the  gospel,  there  was  among  orthodox  Chris¬ 
tians  no  conscious  and  wilful  opposition  to  his  doc¬ 
trine.  The  whole  theory  of  an  anti-Pauline,  Ebionite 

1  Dial.  c.  Tryph .,  c.  47. 

3  Dial.  c.  Tryph.,  c.  23. 

3  E.  g.  Dial.  c.  Tryph.,  c.  19  seq. 


THE  EBIONITE  PARTIES. 


311 


Christianity  in  the  second  century,  is  not  only  unsup¬ 
ported  by  any  solid  evidence,  but  is  positively  proved 
to  be  false.  Rather  is  it  true  that  judaizing  Chris¬ 
tianity  shrunk  away  and  fell  into  a  powerless  sect,  in 
the  presence  of  the  wide-spread  establishment  of  the 
gospel  among  the  heathen,  and  when  Jerusalem,  the 
sacred  seat  of  the  ancient  worship,  became  a  heap  of 
ruins.  Pauline  Christianity  achieved  the  victory ;  and 
then  in  Gentile  churches  themselves  there  sprung  up 
conceptions  of  religion  at  variance  with  the  spirit  and 

i 

tenor  of  the  great  apostle’s  teaching. 

II.  We  proceed  to  the  second  topic  which  we 
proposed  to  consider — The  Early  Views  concerning 
Christ,  and  the  Doctrine  of  his  Divinity. 

In  common  with  the  older  Socinians,  Baur  seeks 
to  prove  that  the  humanitarian  view  of  the  person  of 
the  Saviour  was  the  original  doctrine,  or  the  doctrine 
of  the  Jewish  Christians,  partly  on  the  ground  that 
the  Ebionites  of  the  post-apostolic  period,  the  remnant 
of  the  Judaean  church,  adhered  to  this  conception, 
and  were  Unitarians  of  the  humanitarian  type. 

In  order  to  test  the  validity  of  this  argument,  we 
shall  have  to  stale,  as  concisely  as  we  can,  what  is 
known  respecting  the  rise  and  character  of  the  early 
Ebionite  parties.1 


1  On  this  subject,  there  is  nothing  to  supersede  the  lucid,  master¬ 
ly  dissertation  of  Gieseler  in  Staudlin  u.  TzschirneAs  Archiv  fur 
Kirchengcscliichte,  iv.  2.  Later  investigations  of  ISTeander,  Schliemann 


312  ORIGIN  OF  CATHOLIC  CHRISTIANITY. 

There  is  no  doubt,  as  we  have  said  above,  that 
there  were  in  the  apostolic  age  two  branches  of  the 
Church.  The  Gentiles,  or  the  churches  composed  of 
the  disciples  of  Paul,  and  “  they  of  the  circumcision”, 
were  distinguished  by  the  fact  that  the  latter  kept  up 
the  observance  of  the  Old  Testament  ritual.  It  is  a 
false  position  of  Baur,  as  we  affirm  once  more,  that 
James,  Peter,  and  the  other  Jerusalem  apostles, 
together  with  the  body  of  the  Judaean  church,  were 
disposed  to  disfellowship  Paul  and  his  disciples.  Yet 
there  was  a  party  of  Jewish  Christians — the  Judaizers 
- — imbued  with  a  pharisaical  spirit,  and  including 
many  former  members  of  the  pharisaical  sect,  who 
were  bent  on  making  circumcision  obligatory  upon  the 
heathen  converts,  and.  were  inimical  to  the  Apostle 
Paul.  There  is  reason  to  believe  that  the  judaizing 
party  grew  in  numbers  in  proportion  as  the  Gentile 
branch  of  the  church  gained  in  strength,  and  that 
their  attachment  to  the  ritual  became  more  and  more 
fanatical.  At  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  the  Jewish 
Christians  had  taken  refuge  for  the  time  in  Pella  and 
in  the  adjacent  regions  of  eastern  Palestine.  But  in 
consequence  of  repeated  insurrections  of  the  Jews, 
they  were  at  length  forbidden  by  Hadrian  (a.  d.  135) 
to  enter  the  new  city  which  he  established  on  the  site 
of  Jerusalem  ;  and  the  celebration  of  the  Mosaic  ritual, 


(in  the  work  already  noticed),  Dorner,  and  others,  have  rectified, 
however,  the  representations  of  Gieseler  in  certain  particulars,  and 
have  brought  forward  some  new  information. 


THE  EBIONITE  PARTIES. 


313 


whether  by  Jews  or  Jewish  Christians,  was  interdicted. 
Thenceforward  the  Christian  church  at  Jerusalem 
ceased  to  observe  the  ceremonial  law,  and  was  exter- 
nally,  as  well  as  in  spirit,  in  full  accord  with  the  Gen¬ 
tile  churches. 

Not  far  from  the  time  when  this  decree  was  issued, 
we  find  Justin  Martyr1  distinguishing  between  two 
classes  of  Jewish-Christian  sectaries,  Avith  one  of 
whom  he  can  have  no  communion,  while  he  looks 
upon  the  other  with  charity.  The  first  class  observe 
the  ceremonial  law  and  insist  that  Gentile  Christians 
shall  observe  it ;  the  second  class,  though  observing 
the  law  themselves,  which  Justin  counts  a  weakness, 
yet  freely  tolerate  their  Gentile  brethren  and  make  no 
attempt  to  put  the  yoke  of  circumcision  and  sabbaths 
upon  them.  It  is  plain  that  Justin  has  in  mind  the 
two  parties  which  are  known  to  later  writers  as 
Ebionites  and  Nazarenes  ;  both  however  being  fre¬ 
quently  merged  under  the  common  name  of  Ebionite. 
Justin  immediately  proceeds  to  consider  the  opinion 
which  was  entertained  by  some  Christians,  that  Christ 
did  not  preexist,  but  is  a  man,  not  essentially  dis¬ 
tinguished  from  other  men  ;  and  his  language  renders 
it  clear  that  Jewish  Christians  are  referred  to. 
Irenaeus  (who  first  uses  the  name  Ebionites)  and 
Tertullian  treat  Ebionitism  as  a  heresy,  and  bring  up 
the  fact  of  the  enmity  of  the  sect  to  the  Apostle  Paul. 
This  antagonism  to  Paul,  however,  belonged,  as  we 

1  Dial.  c.  Tryph 47,  48. 


314 


ORIGIN  OE  CATHOLIC  CHRISTIANITY. 


know,  only  to  the  strict  Ebionites,  and  was  not  shared 
by  the  milder  party  of  Nazarenes.  Origen  explicitly 
distinguishes  these  two  divisions  of  the  Ebionite  class. 
The  former,  he  says,  deny  and  the  latter  accept  the 
miraculous  birth  of  Christ  from  the  Virgin.1  Eusebius 
describing  both  parties  under  the  common  designation 
of  Ebionites,  yet  distinctly  states  that  a  portion  of 
them  did  not  deny  “  that  the  Lord  was  born  of  the 
Virgin  by  the  Holy  Ghost.”2  Erom  Jerome  and 
Epiphanius,  in  the  latter  part  of  the  fourth  century, 
we  derive  a  more  full  explanation  of  the  characteristic 
tenets  of  the  different  judaizing  sects.  Epiphanius 
describes  a  third  class  of  Ebionites,  who  had  mingled 
with  their  judaizing  tenets  theosophic  or  gnostical 
speculations  and  thus  concocted  a  distinct  and  pecu¬ 
liar  scheme  of  doctrine.  One  phase  of  this  eclectic 
theology,  as  we  have  already  explained,  is  presented  in 
the  Pseudo-Clementine  Homilies.3  The  Homilies,  it 
will  be  remembered,  along  with  other  elements  which 
separate  their  system  from  the  dogmas  of  either  of  the 
two  parties  which  we  have  just  described,  are  yet 
Ebionite  in  their  hostility  to  the  Apostle  Paul,  their 
rejection  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ’s  divinity,  and  in 
various  other  points.  Jerome,  who  lived  in  the 
neighborhood  of  the  Jewish  Christians  and  held 
intercourse  with  them,  is  our  best  authority,  especially 
so  far  as  the  Nazarenes  are  concerned.  Both  these 

1  Origen,  c.  Celsum ,  v.  61,  also  c.  65. 

2  Euseb.,  Lib.  III.  c.  27.  3  Epipli.,  Haer.  xxx. 


THE  EBIONITE  PARTIES. 


315 


parties  made  use  exclusively  of  the  Gospel  of  the 
Hebrews,  a  gospel  in  the  Aramaic  dialect,  which 
bore  a  near  resemblance  to  the  canonical  Gospel  of 
Matthew.  The  Ebionites  proper,  however,  unlike  the 
Nazarenes,  rejected  the  first  two  chapters.  Both  ob¬ 
served  the  requirements  of  the  ceremonial  law.  It  is 
clear  that  the  Ebionites  proper  considered  Jesus  to  be 
a  mere  man,  begotten  by  a  human  father ;  a  prophet, 
receiving  the  messianic  call  at  his  baptism,  and  endued 
at  that  time  with  the  Holy  Spirit  for  the  discharge 
of  his  office.  Without  circumcision,  there  was  no 
salvation.  Christ  would  come  again  to  establish  his 
throne  at  Jerusalem  and  bring  all  nations  into  subjec¬ 
tion.  Whether  the  Nazarenes  held  the  chiliastic,  or 
sensuous  millennial,  doctrine  of  the  stricter  Ebionites, 
we  cannot  determine.1  But  in  many  features  the 
Nazarenes  were  broadly  distinguished  from  this  party 
of  radical  Judaizers.  They  rejected  the  pharisaical 
traditions  and  spirit.  They  believed  that  Jesus  was 
conceived  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  born  of  a  virgin. 
They  cherished  a  fraternal  feeling  towards  the  Gentile 
Christians.  They  honored  the  Apostle  Paul.  They 
waited,  with  longing,  for  the  conversion  of  their  Jewish 
countrymen  to  the  faith  in  Christ. 

Such,  in  brief,  was  the  character  of  the  Jewish- 
Christian  sects,  as  it  is  gathered  from  the  fragmentary 
information  to  be  gleaned  from  the  Eathers.  We 
cannot  fail  to  recognize  in  the  Ebionites  proper  the 


1  See,  on  this  topic,  Schliemann,  s.  45 7. 


316 


ORIGIN  OF  CATHOLIC  CHRISTIANITY. 


descendants  of  the  party  of  Judaizers  who,  during  the 
life  of  Paul,  displayed  a  fanatical  opposition  to  his 
principles  and  person.  Nor  do  we  err  in  regarding 
the  Nazarenes  as  the  successors  of  that  milder  party 
of  Judaean  Christians,  who,  under  the  lead  of  the 
apostles,  observed,  to  be  sure,  the  laws  and  customs 
of  their  people,  but  were  in  fraternal  union  with  Paul 
and  his  Gentile  churches.  The  territorial  situation  of 
these  post-apostolic  sects,  in  Palestine  and  the  vicinity, 
together  with  all  the  rest  of  the  knowledge  we  possess 
concerning  them,  corroborates  this  view.  When  and 
how  did  these  parties  separate  from  each  other  and 
form  the  rest  of  the  church  ?  We  are  not  without  the 
means  of  answering  this  question.  Hegesippus,  to¬ 
wards  the  end  of  the  second  century,  states  expressly 
that  during  the  lifetime  of  the  apostles,  and  down  to 
the  times  of  Trajan,  there  was  no  heresy  or  division  in 
the  Jerusalem  church,  and  that  the  first  movements  of 
this  sort  occurred  after  the  death  of  Simeon,  the  suc¬ 
cessor  of  James,  or  about  the  year  108.  Up  to  this 
time  the  Church  had  remained  a  pure  and  unspotted 
virgin — a  mode  of  expression  signifying  the  absence 
of  heretical  parties.1  It  may  be  that  little  reliance  is 
to  be  put  upon  the  statement  that  an  individual 
named  Thebuthis  was  the  first  fomenter  of  schism,  or 
that  personal  rivalry  lay  at  the  bottom  of  it ;  but  as  to 
the  main  chronological  fact,  there  is  no  good  reason 
for  doubt.  When  the  final  decree  expelling  the  Jews 

1  See  Heinichen’s  note  (8)  to  Euseb.,  Lib.  III.  32. 


THE  EBIONITE  PARTIES. 


317 


and  Jewish  ritual  from  Jerusalem,  was  issued,  a  large 
number  of  Hebrew  Christians  abandoned  the  ceremo¬ 
nies  of  the  law  and  identified  themselves  with  the 
Gentile  church.1  But  the  Jewish  Christians  who  were 
not  prepared  to  take  this  step  and  were  likewise  un¬ 
prepared  to  give  up  their  Christian  faith  altogether, 
were  thrown  into  the  position  of  separate  sects.  The 
precise  relations  of  the  two  divisions  of  the  judaistic 
party  to  each  other,  it  is  not  so  easy  to  determine. 
But  this  we  know,  that  the  name  of  the  Nazarenes  had 
been  applied  from  the  beginning,  by  the  Jews,  to 
Christians  generally;2  and  that  the  Nazarene  party, 
in  their  principle  relative  to  circumcision  and  their 
feeling  towards  Paul,  harmonized  with  the  liberal 
Jewish  Christians  of  the  apostolic  age  and  were  bitterly 
hated  by  the  stricter  Ebionites.  It  is  natural,  there¬ 
fore,  to  suppose,  with  Gieselcr,  that  the  Ebionites 
proper — the  strict  Judaizers — broke  off  from  the 
Nazarenes  at  the  time  when  Hegesippus  states  that 
heresy  and  division  began.  When  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  was  written,  or  shortly  before  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem  by  Titus,  the  judaizing  party  had  shown 
signs  of  withdrawing  itself  from  their  more  liberal 

1  Gieseler’s  Essay  (in  Staudlin  u.  Tzschirner ),  s.  325.  Ilis  refer¬ 
ences  are  to  Epipli.  de  Pond,  et  Mens.  §  15,  and  Sulpicius  Severus, 
Hist.  Sacr.  II.  31.  Vfhere  tliere  is  so  great  an  inherent  probability 
that  the  fact  was  as  they  state,  these  authorities  may  he  considered 
sufficient. 

2  Paul  was  called  by  his  Jewish  accusers  “a  ringleader  of  the  sect 
of  the  Nazarenes.”  Acts  xxiv.  5. 


318 


ORIGIN  OF  CATHOLIC  CHRISTIANITY. 


country  men  and  brethren.  Here  was  the  germ  of  the 
stricter  Ebionite  party.  That  the  word  Ebionite  is 
derived  from  a  person  bearing  the  name  of  Ebion,  a 
founder  of  the  sect;  is  probably  a  fancy  of  Tertullian, 
since  no  mention  is  made  of  such  an  individual  by 
Origen,  Irenaeus,  or  any  other  previous  writer.  That 
the  word  signifies  the  narrow  standpoint  of  the  law, 
or  the  low  views  entertained  concerning  Christ,  both 
of  which  interpretations  are  given  by  Origen,  is  equally 
improbable.  It  is  more  likely  that  it  was  one  of  the 
names  of  opprobrium  early  affixed  by  the  Jews  to 
believers  in  Jesus,  on  account  of  their  actual  poverty 
and  social  inferiority;  though  this  poverty  did  not 
spring,  as  Baur  would  have  it,  from  ascetic  principles. 
This  name  continued  to  be  applied  to  Jewish  believers 
by  their  unbelieving  countrymen,  and  was  gradually 
appropriated,  at  least  in  Christian  use,  more  specially 
to  one  branch  of  the  Jewish  separatists. 

The  unsoundness  of  the  argument  drawn  from  the 
opinions  of  the  Ebionites,  against  the  supposition  that 
the  divinity  of  Christ  was  a  part  of  the  faith  of  the 
apostolic  church,  is  easily  exposed.  In  the  first  place, 
it  is  not  true  that  the  Nazarenes — the  only  portion  of 
the  Ebionites  whose  opinion  on  the  subject  is  pertinent 
in  the  discussion — professed  the  humanitarian  doc¬ 
trine.  The  Eathers  unite  in  attributing  to  them  a 
higher  conception  of  Christ  than  was  entertained  by 
the  more  bigoted  faction.  They  believed  in  his  mira¬ 
culous  generation  through  the  Spirit  of  God.  We  do 


THE  EBIONITE  PARTIES. 


319 


not  find,  indeed,  that  the  hypostatic  preexistence  of 
Christ  was  an  article  of  their  creed ;  but  the  absence 
of  this  tenet  from  a  theology  not  fully  defined  or  de¬ 
veloped,  is  very  different  from  the  distinct  rejection  of 
it.  Horner  cogently  defends  the  ground  which  was 
formerly  taken  by  Horsley,  that  the  Nazarenes  are  not 
to  be  counted  among  the  disbelievers  in  the  Saviour’s 
divinity.1  He  shows  that  when  Christ  is  styled,  in  a 
passage  of  their  gospel,  the  Son  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  it 
is  not  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  Sanctifier,  but  the  spirit  of 
God  in  the  more  general  sense,  or  God  himself,  that  is 
meant.2  Horner  holds  that  their  view,  though  unde¬ 
fined,  had  more  resemblance  to  Patripassianism.  But, 
in  the  second  place,  if  the  Nazarenes  of  the  second 
and  third  centuries  were  humanitarians,  it  would  be 
entirely  unwarrantable  to  infer  that  the  body  of  Jeru¬ 
salem  Christians  in  the  apostolic  age  were  of  the  same 
mind.  The  Ebionites  did  not  represent  the  type  of 
faith  and  feeling  which  belonged  to  Peter,  James, 
John,  and  their  disciples.  We  might  as  well  infer 
that  the  faith  of  the  Congregationalists  of  Boston  at 
the  end  of  the  seventeenth  century,  must  correspond 
to  the  faith  of  their  descendants  at  the  end  of  the 
eighteenth.  Great  changes  of  doctrine  imperceptibly 
occur ;  and  this  is  more  easily  the  fact  where  doctrines 
are  not  scientifically  defined.  We  have  historical 

1  Dorner’s  EntwicJcelungsgeschichte  d.  Lehre  v.  d.  Person  Christi} 
B.  I.  s.  307  seq. 

2  Schliemann  misinterprets  these  poetical  expressions. 


320 


ORIGIN  OF  CATHOLIC  CHRISTIANITY. 


proof  that  such  a  change  occurred  in  the  case  of  the 
Jewish  Christians.  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
written  to  Palestinian  Christians  a  short  time  before 
the  capture  of  Jerusalem  by  Titus,  is  a  warning 
against  these  tendencies,  of  which  actual  apostasy  on 
the  part  of  some,  and  heretical  Ebionitism  on  the 
part  of  others,  were  the  proper  fruit.  Side  by  side 
with  his  arguments  against  keeping  up  the  Mosaic 
ritual,  the  author  of  the  Epistle  lays  stress  upon 
the  exalted  nature  of  Christ.  It  appears  altogether 
probable  that  the  disposition  to  take  a  lower  than 
the  apostolic  view  of  the  person  of  Christ,  as  well 
as  a  tenacious  clinging  to  the  obsolete  ritual,  were 
manifest  dangers  which  the  writer  of  this  epistle 
endeavors  to  meet  and  to  avert.  When  the  crisis 
occurred  which  compelled  a  choice,  a  portion  of  the 
J udaean  Christians  gave  up  the  law  and  cast  in  their 
lot  with  the  Gentile  Christians.  The  Ebionites  were 
degenerate  Hebrew  Christians.  If  there  was  an 
advance  on  the  part  of  their  brethren,  on  their  part 
there  was  retrogression.  Not  only  were  they  opposed 
to  a  logical  and  legitimate  progress,  they  fell  back  from 
the  tone  and  spirit  of  apostolic  Christianity  and  a 
large  portion  of  them  settled  down  upon  a  lower  view 
of  Christ,  according  to  which  he  was  only  a  human 
prophet  and  lawgiver. 

We  are  now  prepared  to  judge  of  the  truth  of  the 
oft-repeated  statement  that  Christianity  in  its  first 
stage  was  Ebionite.  If  this  statement  signify  that 


baur’s  wrong  exegesis.  321 

the  apostles  and  the  church,  as  a  body,  at  Jerusalem, 
required  heathen  converts  to  be  circumcised,  it  is  false. 
If  it  signify  that  they  were  humanitarians  in  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  Christ,  it  is  likewise  unfounded.  If  it  mean 
that  they  were  inimical  to  Paul,  it  is  equally  destitute 
of  truth.  If  it  mean  that  they  made  poverty  a  duty 
and  were  a  band  of  ascetics,  it  is  not  less  contradicted 
by  the  evidence.  If  it  be  intended  simply  that  the 
Jewish  Christians  continued  to  worship  in  the  temple 
and,  for  themselves,  to  observe  the  law,  so  much  is 
true.  In  the  proper  and  ordinary  acceptation  of  the 
term,  they  were  not  Ebionites  ;  and  this  appellation 
can  be  rightly  applied  only  to  schismatical  parties  of 
a  later  date. 

When  we  follow  Baur  into  the  province  of  exege¬ 
sis,  we  find  his  statements  still  more  fallacious.  We 
allow  that  Christ  is  not  presented  in  just  the  same 
aspect  in  the  various  books  of  the  New  Testament, 
whether  gospels  or  epistles.  To  say  nothing  of  other 
grounds  for  a  variety  of  representation,  it  is  true  of 
every  great  character  in  history,  that  the  impression  he 
makes  on  different  persons  varies  with  their  varying 
individuality.  One  is  taken  up  with  a  side  which 
another  partly  overlooks.  The  Gospels  do  differ, 
though  they  do  not  dissent,  from  each  other.  The 
Synoptics  dwell  more  on  the  special  proofs  of  messiah- 
ship  and  on  the  future  disclosure  of  Christ’s  exalted 

rank  in  the  exercise  of  his  office  of  judge.  In  John, 
21 


322 


ORIGIN  OF  CATHOLIC  CHRISTIANITY 


the  glory  of  Christ  to  be  exhibited  at  the  end  of  the 
world  retreats  more  into  the  background,  whilst  the 
fact  of  his  preexistence  is  distinct  and  prominent.  But 
essentially  the  same  conception  of  Christ  is  common 
both  to  the  Synoptics  and  to  John.  The  same  under¬ 
lying  unity  is  also  characteristic  of  the  remaining  por¬ 
tions  of  the  New  Testament. 

1.  Matthew,  who  is  confidently  claimed  as  a  repre¬ 
sentative  of  the  humanitarian  view,  really  contains  the 
same  lofty  conception  of  the  person  of  Christ  which  is 
met  with  later  in  the  New  Testament.  The  Christ  of 
Matthew  is  not  merely  a  teacher  and  lawgiver,  not 
simply  a  channel  for  conveying  truth  to  men.  He 
himself,  as  the  head  of  the  new  kingdom,  a  central 
object  of  faith  and  love,  stands  in  the  foreground.  The 
faith  of  the  centurion  in  his  supernatural  power  is 
applauded ;  the  little  faith  in  him,  on  the  part  of  the 
disciples,  when  the  lake  is  tossed  by  the  tempest,  is 
rebuked ;  the  fervent  faith  confessed  by  Peter,  or 
Peter  as  the  representative  and  embodiment  of  this 
faith,  is  declared  to  be  the  rock  on  which  the  Church 
is  built.  Christ  is  to  be  loved  more  than  father  or 
mother.  All  men  are  to  come  to  him  to  find  rest. 
In  his  name  the  Gentiles  are  to  trust.  Into  his  name, 
or  fellowship,  they  are  to  be  baptized.  He  is  greater 
than  Jonas,  greater  than  Solomon,  Lord  of  the  Sab¬ 
bath-day.  It  is  undeniable  that  the  title  of  “  Son  of 
God,”  especially  when  associated,  as  it  is,  with  the 
antithetical  title  of  “  Son  of  Man,”  is  not  only  used 


BAUR  S  WRONG  EXEGESIS.  323 

with  a  physical  import,  as  referring  to  his  miraculous 
birth,  and  an  official  import  as  an  honorary  title  of  the 
Messiah,  but  denotes,  also,  a  metaphysical  relation  to 
God — a  higher,  divine  nature.  “  My  Father/’  is  the 
usual  and,  as  we  think,  the  deeply  significant  mode  in 
which  Christ  alludes  to  the  relation  of  himself  to  God. 
Moreover,  in  the  background  of  the  eschatology  in 
Matthew  is  the  conception  of  Christ  as  divine.  He 
is  to  come  in  the  clouds  of  heaven,  in  the  glory  of  his 
Father,  attended  by  a  retinue  of  angels,  the  most 
exalted  of  created  intelligences.  He  is  to  summon 
together  and  to  judge  the  entire  race  of  mankind. 
How  shall  this  be  done  without  omniscience  ?  To 
our  mind,  the  impression  which  this  whole  representa¬ 
tion  is  fitted  to  make,  is  wholly  incongruous  with  the 
humanitarian  doctrine.  Very  significant,  as  teaching 
that  “  Son  of  David  ”  designates  but  one  side  of  his 
being,  and  as  likewise  containing  an  implication  of  his 
preexistence,  is  the  question  to  the  Pharisees :  if  David 
(in  the  110th  Psalm)  call  him  Lord,  how  then  is  he 
his  son  ?  There  are  not  wanting  passages,  even  in 
Matthew,  which  closely  resemble,  even  in  language, 
the  Johannean  representation  :  “  No  man  knoweth  the 
Son  but  the  Father,  neither  knoweth  any  man  the 
Father  save  the  Son  and  he  to  whomsoever  the  Son 
will  reveal  him ;  ”  1  or,  as  it  reads  in  Luke,  “  No  man 
knoweth  who  the  Son  is  but  the  Father,  and  who  the 
Father  is  but  the  Son,  and  he  to  whom  the  Son  will 


1  Matt.  xi.  27. 


324 


ORIGIN  OE  CATHOLIC  CHRISTIANITY. 


reveal  him.”  1  How  evident  that  Son  ”  is  here  not  a 
mere  official  designation  !  Christ  is  the  sole  Revealer 
— in  the  language  of  John,  the  Logos  or  Word !  He 
and  the  Father  mutually  know  each  other ;  and  from 
the  direct  knowledge  of  either,  all  other  beings  are 
precluded!  Here  is  presented  a  necessary  incident, 
one  of  the  constituent  elements,  we  had  almost  said, 
of  the  Saviour’s  divinity.  It  is  true  that  Christ  is 
subordinate  to  the  Father.  The  historical  Christ,  the 
Word  made  flesh,  both  in  the  New  Testament  and  in 
the  creed  of  the  Church,  is  subordinate  to  the  Father. 
A  kind  of  subordination,  not  inconsistent  with  full  and 
proper  divinity,  belongs  even  to  the  preexistent  Christ, 
as  the  Nicene  formularies,  in  agreement  with  the  New 
Testament,  imply. 

2.  The  Epistles  of  Paul  which  Baur  chooses  to 
consider  genuine,  teach  the  same  doctrine  concerning 
Christ  as  do  the  Epistles  which  he  rejects.  According 
to  Baur,  the  principal  peculiarity  of  Paul’s  doctrine  is 
the  ascription  to  Christ  of  a  sort  of  celestial  humanity, 
whereby  he  is  distinguished  from  Adam.  Dropping 
the  interpolated  6  xvQiog  from  the  text  in  1  Cor. 
xv.  47,  he  holds  that  Paul  sets  the  earthly,  psychical 
nature  of  the  first  Adam,  in  which  the  germs  of  sin 
and  death  were  inherent,  in  contrast  with  the  second 
Adam,  who,  instead  of  springing  from  the  ground,  is 
constituted,  so  to  speak,  of  a  higher,  heavenly  stuff. 
Now  Paul  does,  to  be  sure,  in  conformity  with 


1  Luke  x.  32. 


/ 


baur’s  wrong  exegesis. 


325 


Genesis,  ascribe  mortality  to  the  unfallen  Adam,  the 
exemption  from  that  lot  having  been  the  destined, 
but  forfeited  reward  of  obedience.1  But  his  whole 
theology  is  utterly  opposed  to  the  conception  of  sin  as 
originating  in  a  physical  imperfection  and  as  forming  a 
necessary  stage  in  the  development  of  humanity.  Sin 
is  man’s  act ;  it  is  n (xqanvco^a — transgression  of  a 
law,  holy,  just,  and  good.  Sin  with  Paul  is  ethical, 
not  physical.  And  as  to  the  declaration  respecting 
Christ,  the  second  Adam,  that  he  is  from  heaven 
ovqcivov ),  it  means  either  that  thence  he  is  to 
appear  in  his  glorified  body  (comp.  Phil.  iii.  20) — such 
is  the  interpretation  of  Meyer ;  or,  that  he  is  a  man 
supernaturally  introduced  into  the  race.2  Baur’s 
interpretation  is  not  legitimately  drawn  from  the  pas¬ 
sage,  but  read  into  it.  In  1  Cor.  viii.  6,  the  pre¬ 
existence  of  Christ  is  distinctly  and  undeniably  assert¬ 
ed,  and  with  it  the  creation  of  the  universe  by  him 
“  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  by  whom  are  all  things .”  To 
refer  this  expression  to  the  moral  creation,  or  the 
redemptive  work  of  Christ,  as  Baur  does,  though  not 
without  evident  misgivings,  is  arbitrary  and  forbidden 
by  the  context — the  “  all  things  ”  in  this  clause  being 
obviously  identical  with  the  “  all  things  ”  of  the  clause 

1  Compare  with  these  passages  of  Paul,  Gen.  iii.  19,  22,  24.  The 
Scriptural  doctrine  respecting  the  connection  of  sin  with  death, 
together  with  the  sense  of  1  Cor.  xv.  46  seq.,  is  the  subject  of  an 
abte  discussion  in  Julius  Muller’s  Lehre  v.  d.  Sunde ,  B.  II.  s.  400  seq. 

2  This  last  meaning  Neander  prefers,  in  his  posthumous  Commen¬ 
tary  on  the  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians. 


326 


ORIGIN  OF  CATHOLIC  CHRISTIANITY. 


preceding,  where  the  creation  is  attributed,  in  opposi¬ 
tion  to  polytheism,  to  one  God.  In  2  Cor.  viii.  9,  is 
another  undeniable  assertion  of  the  preexistence  of 
Christ  and  of  the  incarnation :  “  Ye  know  the  grace 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  though  he  was  rich>  yet 
for  your  sakes  he  became  poor,  that  ye  through  his 
poverty  might  be  rich.”  The  descent  of  Christ  from 
a  preexistent  glory  to  a  state  of  humiliation  is  here 
definitely  declared.  The  blessings  of  salvation  come 
to  us  because  Christ,  from  being  rich,  consented  to 
become  poor.  It  cannot  mean,  as  Baur  would  have 
it,  that  in  order  to  enrich  us  with  grace,  Christ,  who 
was  rich  in  grace,  was  in  a  condition  of  poverty ;  for 
if  this  were  the  sense,  we  must  understand,  if  we 
would  save  the  text  from  confusion  of  thought,  that  he 
became  poor  in  grace  !  On  the  question  whether  Paul 
held  to  any  real  preexistence  of  Christ,  in  any  other 
way  than  as  the  typical  man  and  as  all  types  ideally 
preexist,  Baur  is  undecided  but  leans  to  the  negative. 
The  preexistence  of  Christ  in  Paul,  he  says,  “  is  vague 
and  ambiguous.”  1  On  the  contrary,  we  affirm  that 
these  passages,  not  to  mention  what  other  Epistles, 
falsely  called  spurious,  furnish  to  the  same  effect, 
exhibit  in  different  language  the  equivalent  of  John’s 
doctrine  of  the  Logos. 

Baur  finds  in  these  other  Epistles  an  advance 
upon  the  conception  in  the  accepted  four,  but  still  a 
form  of  doctrine  below  that  of  John.  He  misinter- 

1  Das  Christenthnm ,  etc.  s.  314. 


REFUTATION  OF  BAUR. 


327 


prets,  however,  Phil.  ii.  6 — a  text  containing  a  view 
of  Christ  identical  with  that  of  the  passage  last  com¬ 
mented  on.  “  Who  being  in  the  form  of  God,”  says 
Paul,  “  thought  it  not  robbery  to  be  equal  with  God, 
but  made  himself  of  no  reputation  ” — literally,  emptied 
himself — “and  took  upon  him  the  form  of  a  servant.” 
Here  Baur  confesses  that  preexistence  and  a  near 
relationship  to  God  are  predicated  of  Christ.  But  the 
equality  with  God — expressed  in  the  la  a  Otco< — was 
not  possessed,  Baur  claims,  until  he  had  passed 
through  the  humiliation  of  an  earthly  life  and  the  cross, 
and  had  been  raised  from  it  to  that  pitch  of  exaltation. 
But  that  the  true  and  proper  Divinity,  expressed  in 
the  phrase  just  quoted,  is  predicated  of  the  preexistent 
Christ,  is  evident  from  the  expression,  “  in  the  form 
of  God,”  contrasted  as  it  is  with  “  the  form  of  a  ser¬ 
vant  ”  which  he  assumed.  He  was  in  the  form  of 
God ;  his  mode  of  existence  was  divine  ;  the  attributes 
and  glory  of  God  pertained  to  him.  In  purposing  to 
descend  to  save  man,  he  chose  not  to  appear  in  the 
glories  of  Divinity ;  he  let  go  his  condition  of  equality 
with  God  instead  of  being  eager  to  keep  hold  upon  it, 
or — as  he  is  figured  in  the  act  of  parting  with  it — to 
Jay  hold  of  it ,  and  assumed  humanity.  Is  there  not 
here  the  precise  equivalent  of  the  Johannean  doctrine 
of  a  relinquished  divine  glory,  in  which  he  is  after¬ 
wards  reinstated  ? 1 

The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  and  the  Apocalypse 

'  John  xvii.  5. 


328 


ORIGIN  OF  CATHOLIC  CHRISTIANITY. 


are  ranked  by  Baur  between  the  Epistles  of  Paul  which 
he  considers  genuine,  and  the  rest  which  bear  his 
name.1  They  contain  a  doctrine,  Baur  says,  between 
the  humanitarian  view  and  that  highest  view  of 
Christ’s  person  which  he  finds  in  the  Gospel  and  the 
first  Epistle  attributed  to  John.  But  in  the  descrip¬ 
tion  of  Christ,  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  as  the 
Brightness  or  Effulgence  of  God’s  glory,  and  the  ex¬ 
press  image  of  his  person,  and  as  sitting  down,  after 
he  had  purged  away  our  sins,  at  the  right  hand  of  the 
Majesty  on  High  (Heb.  i.  3),  there  is  presented  the 
same  conception  which  we  have  found  in  Phil.  ii.  16. 
And  as  to  the  Apocalypse,  when  Baur  allows  that  in 
this  book  Christ  “  not  only  shares  with  God  the  same 
power  and  dominion  and  the  same  homage,  but  is  also 
clothed  with  predicates  which  seem  to  leave  room  for 
no  essential  distinction  between  him  and  God,”  2  he 
virtually  allows  the  validity  of  the  orthodox  inter¬ 
pretation,  and  his  subsequent,  halting  attempts  to 
qualify  and  invalidate  this  admission  fail  of  their  end. 

In  regard  to  the  theological  doctrine  of  the  Person 
of  Christ  in  the  post-apostolic  age,  Baur  is  brought 
by  his  philosophy  into  an  important  disagreement 
with  the  older  Socinians.  Baur  considers  the  Homo- 
ousion  of  the  Nicene  creed  to  be  the  logical  and  legiti- 

1  We  may  observe  that  one  of  the  Tubingen  leaders,  Hilgenfeld, 
has  retracted  his  denial  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Oolossians  and  the  1st  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians.  So  mutable 
is  “criticism.”  2  Das  Christentlmm ,  etc.  s.  315. 


REFUTATION  OF  BAUR. 


329 


mate  development  of  the  Christian  idea.  The  forms 
in  which  the  doctrine  was  stated — the  Logos  termino¬ 
logy,  in  particular — were  taken  from  the  Alexandrian 
Jewish  philosophy.  But  the  mature  Christian  doc¬ 
trine,  as  to  its  contents,  was  not  a  conglomerate  of 
beliefs  before  existing.  It  was  not,  as  Socinians  have 
charged,  a  theft  from  Platonism.  Yet  the  reader 
would  be  deceived  if  he  supposed  that  Baur  regards 
Christ  as  the  Nicene  Bathers  regarded  him.  The 
llomoousion,  in  his  theory,  does  not  represent  an  ex¬ 
clusive  and  peculiar  distinction  of  Christ.  He,  by 
the  impression  he  made  on  men,  only  gave  occasion 
to  the  process  of  speculation  which  terminated  in  the 
Nicene  formula.  This  formula  has  value  to  Baur, 
only  as  a  symbol  expressive  of  the  union  of  the  finite 
and  the  infinite,  the  pantheistic  oneness  of  man  and 
God.  With  us  the  llomoousion  only  defines  what 
Christ  was  in  reality — the  rank  that  belonged  to  him 
in  distinction  from  all  other  sons  of  men.  The  process 
of  theology  was  the  effort  to  state  the  impression  pro¬ 
duced  by  the  person  of  Christ  and  by  his  declarations 
concerning  himself.  It  did  not  add  to  the  contents 
of  the  earliest  faith ;  it  simply  evolved  that  faith  in  a 
scientific  form.  The  IPomoousion  was  not  the  mere 
climax  of  a  course  of  thought,  of  which  the  historical 
Person  of  Christ  was  the  moving  spring  but  which 
passed  above  and  beyond  the  starting  point.  Christ 
•teas  all  that  he  was  seen  to  be  in  the  disciples’  faith 
and  declared  to  be  in  the  mature  form  of  the  creed. 


330 


ORIGIN  OF  CATHOLIC  CHRISTIANITY. 


Connected  with  the  false  position  of  Baur  that  the 
earliest  doctrine — the  first  step  in  the  metaphysical 
process — was  humanitarian,  are  historical  statements 
either  unfounded  or  exaggerated.  The  prevailing 
view  of  Christ  which  was  taken  in  the  Roman  church 
through  the  greater  part  of  the  second  century,  Baur 
holds  to  have  been  Ebionite.  This  theory  about  the 
opinions  of  the  Roman  church  has  been  thoroughly 
refuted.  The  intimate  fellowship  of  Irenaeus  with 
that  church,  as  Neander  has  remarked,  is  sufficient  to 
create  the  strongest  presumption  against  Baur’s 
hypothesis.  But  the  Artemonites,  Baur  reminds  us, 
affirmed  that  their  doctrine,  which  was  monarchianism 
in  the  humanitarian  form,  had  been  the  doctrine  of 
the  church  of  Rome  up  to  Zephyrinus.  So  they 
affirmed  that  their  doctrine  was  that  of  the  apostles, 
John  included;  for  they  received  his  Gospel.  But 
Eusebius,  to  whom  we  are  indebted  for  this  informa¬ 
tion,  adds  that  their  declarations  were  denied  and 
were  met  by  appeals  to  the  early  writers  and  ancient 
hymns,  in  which  the  divinity  of  Christ  was  said  to  be 
attested.1  Moreover,  thanks  to  the  newly  discovered 
Hippolytus,  it  is  not  only  ascertained  that  Zephyrinus 
was  a  Patripassianist,  holding  thus  to  an  extreme 
formula  of  Christ’s  divinity,  but  it  is  now  settled  that 

1  Euseb.,  Lib.  Y.  c.  28.  In  refutation  of  tbe  statement  that  the 
humanitarian  doctrine  had  prevailed  up  to  Zephyrinus  it  was  urged, 
as  Eusebius  states,  that  Victor  his  predecessor  had  expelled  Theo- 
dotus  the  Currier  from  the  church,  for  holding  that  opinion. 


REFUTATION  OF  BAUR. 


331 


one,  if  not  two,  other  bishops  of  the  Roman  church 
about  that  time,  adopted  the  same  doctrine.  Patripas- 
sianism,  of  which  the  Sabellian  theory  is  the  offspring, 
could  never  have  sprung  from  Jewish  or  judaizing 
influences.  It  is  the  antipode  of  the  humanitarian 
doctrine.  Yet  the  fact  is,  that  while  adherents  of  the 
latter  doctrine  gained  no  foothold  at  Rome,  the  Patri- 
passianist  leaders  found  great  favor  and  even  won  over 
two,  if  not  three,  bishops  to  their  opinion.  It  is  thus 
demonstrated  that  the  anterior  opinions  at  Rome  were 
in  no  sense  Ebionite.1  Indeed,  we  learn  from  Iiip- 
polytus — from  whom  it  is  ascertained  that  Zephyrinus 
embraced  the  Patripassianist  doctrine — that  the  Trini¬ 
ty  in  the  form  of  hypostatical  subordinationism,  in 
which,  also,  he  is  himself  a  believer,  was  the  mode  of 
view  previously  prevailing  at  Rome. 

Baur  would  reverse  the  usual  view  of  the  course 
which  history  took.  He  claims  that  humanitarian,  or 
Ebionite,  monarchianism  (for  he  confounds  the  two) 
wfas  the  first  belief.  This  was  followed  by  a  Patri- 
passian  monarchianism.  The  Logos  doctrine  mediated 
between  the  two  and  culminated  in  the  spurious  gos¬ 
pel  of  John,  while  Artemonism  or  the  humanitarian 

1  We  should  not  forget  to  remind  the  reader  that  the  human¬ 
itarian  monarchianism  differed  from  the  ordinary  Ebionite  view  in 
giving  no  such  exaggerated  importance  to  the  baptism  of  Jesus  and 
the  endowments  which  he  was  thought  to  have  then  received. 
Neither  unitarianism  springing  up  within  the  Catholic  church,  nor 
ritualism  there,  is  to  he  confounded,  either  historically  or  doctrinally, 
with  Ebionitism. 


332 


ORIGIN  OF  CATHOLIC  CHRISTIANITY. 


party  at  the  end  of  the  second  century,  was  a  reaction 
in  behalf  of  the  original  belief.  But,  apart  from 
explicit  proof  of  the  early  and  widely  diffused  Logos 
terminology,  how  impossible  that  Patripassianism 
should  have  been  the  child  of  the  humanitarian  view 
lying  at  the  opposite  extreme  !  How  impossible  that 
Patripassianists  should  have  been  pacified  and  satisfied 
with  the  Logos  doctrine  !  How  singular  that  Patri¬ 
passianists  in  seeking  to  support  their  own  theory 
against  it,  should  have  appealed  to  this  very  gospel  of 
John,  a  recent  fiction  of  their  adversaries  !  In  truth, 
there  is  decisive  proof  that  monarchianism  sprung  up 
by  the  side  of  the  Logos  theology,  from  the  difficulty 
felt  by  certain  minds  in  respect  to  the  immanent 
Trinity  ;  the  humanitarian  form  among  persons  of  a 
rationalistic  turn  ;  the  Patripassian  among  those  who 
were  disposed  to  exalt  Christ  to  the  utmost. 

In  the  study  of  ante-Nicene  writers  on  the  ques¬ 
tion  of  Christ’s  divinity,  it  is  above  all  things  impor¬ 
tant  to  understand  the  true  principle  of  theological 
development.  There  is  not  an  addition  to  the  contents 
of  Scripture  nor  to  the  truth  embraced  in  faith  ;  but 
theology  is  the  scientific  statement  of  the  teaching  of 
Scripture  and  of  the  objects  of  faith.  The  scientific 
statement  may  be,  and  at  the  outset  is  likely  to  be, 
defective.  Some  essential  element  is  omitted.  Some 
incongruous  element  is  introduced.  Subsequent  in¬ 
vestigation  and  the  light  shed  by  controversy,  remedy 
the  fault ;  and  the  doctrinal  statement  advances  nearer 


REFUTATION  OF  BAUR. 


333 


to  an  exact  interpretation  of  tlie  Christian  faith.1 
Controversialists  on  both  sides  have  erred  in  overlook¬ 
ing  this  distinction.  They  have  either  hastily  inferred 
that  an  ante-Nicene  Bather  is  Arian,  because  his 
phraseology  is  inexact  and  might  indicate  Arian  opin¬ 
ions,  if  uttered  two  centuries  later,  when  the  line 
between  the  Arian  and  Athanasian  doctrine  had  been 
sharply  drawn  •  or  they  have  attempted  to  strain  these 
defective  statements  into  coincidence  with  the  Nicene 
watchwords.  From  this  last  error,  in  consequence  of 
ignoring  the  true  principle  of  doctrinal  development, 
so  great  and  deeply  learned  a  writer  as  Bull  is  not 
free. 

Bor  ourselves,  we  are  convinced  that  the  ante- 
Nicene  writers  not  only  believed  in  the  incarnation 
and  the  preexistence  of  Christ,  but  also  exalted  him, 
in  their  faith,  above  the  category  of  creatures.  This  is 
true  when  they  are  not  consistent  in  their  language, 
and  fall  into  phraseology  which  clashes,  not  only  with 
other  statements  of  their  own,  but  with  the  truth 
which  they  had  at  heart.  “  As  concerns  the  church 
doctrine  respecting  the  Son  of  God,  the  Church  from 
the  beginning  has  recognized  in  the  person  of  Christ, 
as  he  had  appeared  on  earth,  a  superhuman,  yea, 
divine  manifestation,  nature,  power,  glory.  This  was 
even  their  peculiar  doctrine — the  object  round  which 

1  For  good  remarks  on  the  distinction  to  be  made  between  cor¬ 
rectness  of  faith  and  correctness  in  the  statement  of  it,  see  Dr. 
Shedd’s  History  of  Doctrine ,  Yol.  I.  p.  246  seq. 


334  ORIGIN  OF  CATHOLIC  CHRISTIANITY. 

all  tlieir  thoughts  clustered.  At  first,  just  as  was  the 
case  with  the  apostles,  the  foundation  of  this  ideal 
apprehension  of  Christ  rested  more  in  feeling  and  in  a 
living  necessity  of  their  nature,  and  the  thought  was 
grasped  and  held  in  a  diversified,  free  form.”  1  Such 
is  the  conclusion  of  one  of  the  most  impartial  and 
thoroughly  learned  of  the  recent  writers  on  the  history 
of  doctrine.  He  proceeds  to  add  that  the  parties,  in 
the  first  two  centuries,  who  .called  in  question  this 
cardinal  truth,  were  either,  like  the  Ebionites,  outside 
of  the  pale  of  the  Church,  or,  like  the  Artemonites, 
alien  from  its  spirit.  As  Neander  has  said,  there  was 
a  consciousness  that  the  Redeemer  was  he  from  whom 
the  creation  proceeded,  through  whom  all  things  were 
made  that  were  made.  In  the  doctrine  of  the  Son,  or 
the  Word,  as  the  revealer  of  the  invisible  God,  and  of 
the  necessity  for  such  a  mediator,  the  essential  ele¬ 
ments  of  the  orthodox  conception  are  really  involved. 
“  No  man  hath  seen  God  at  any  time.”  As  He  is  in 
himself,  He  is  not  directly  visible,  cognizable,  to  any 
creature.  The  Revealer  must  be,  of  course,  another 
than  God ;  and  yet  not  another  as  a  creature  is 
another,  because  in  this  case  he  would,  by  the  supposi¬ 
tion,  stand  at  a  distance  from  the  being  whom  he  is  to 
reveal,  instead  of  really  bringing  that  being  to  the 
knowledge  and  contact  of  created  intelligences. 

These  remarks  will  be  found  to  be  verified  by  a 
candid  examination  of  the  early  Fathers.  Even 


1  Baumgarten-Crusius,  Dogmengeschichte ,  B.  II.  s.  143. 


'  EARLY  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  PERSON  OF  CHRIST.  335 


Hernias,  a  Roman  Christian,  who  is  thought  by  some 
to  be  so  infected  with  Ebionite  tendencies,  ascribes 
to  Christ  an  existence  prior  to  that  of  any  creature, 
and  a  participation  in  the  work  of  creation  :  “  filius 
quidem  Dei  omni  creatura  antiquior  est  it  a  ut  in 
consilio  Patri  sno  adfuerit  ad  condendam  creaturam.”  1 
How  emphatically  are  the  Saviour’s  preexistence  and 
divinity  asserted  in  that  gem  of  the  early  literature, 
the  anonymous  epistle  to  Diognet ! 2  It  is  still 
doubted  whether  in  Justin  Martyr  the  preexistent 
Word  is  hypostatic — personal — before  God’s  purpose 
to  create  is  about  to  be  carried  into  effect ;  but  Jus¬ 
tin’s  idea  of  emanation  takes  the  Word  out  of  the 
category  of  creatures,  even  though,  now  and  then,  he 
may  fall  into  expressions  which  are  not  logically  cohe¬ 
rent  with  this  position.  When  he  attributes  all  true 
knowledge  of  divine  things,  even  among  the  heathen, 
to  the  enlightenment  that  proceeds  from  the  Word, 

1  Hennas,  Lib.  III.  simil.  IX.,  XII.  The  use,  in  the  early  writers, 
of  such  terms  as  “  Spirit  ”  and  “  Iloly  Spirit,”  sometimes  to  designate 
the  preexistent  Christ  as  an  equivalent  of  Logos,  and  sometimes  in  a 
general  sense  for  God,  or  the  operative  energy  of  God,  has  given  rise 
to  many  mistakes.  It  has  been  erroneously  concluded  that  the  Holy 
Spirit,  i.  e.  the  Sanctifier,  was  not  held  to  be  an  hypostasis  distinct 
from  the  preexistent  Christ,  and  that  the  personality  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
i.  e.  the  Sanctifier,  was  not  an  article  of  belief.  These  mistakes  are 
admirably  exposed  and  explained  by  Baumgarten-Crusius,  in  a  pas¬ 
sage  of  his  DogmengescMchte ,  B.  II.  s.  178  seq. 

2  C.  7,  8.  See  also  Clem.  1  Cor.  cc.  36,  60,  16,  22 ;  Barnabas,  c. 
6  (the  comment  on  Gen.  1 :  26) ;  Ignatius,  ad  Phil.  c.  9  ;  ad  Magn.  c. 
8  ;  ad  Polyc.  c.  3 ;  Polyc.,  ad  Phil .  c.  3,  c.  7  (where  is  quoted  John 
iv.  3). 


336 


ORIGIN  OF  CATHOLIC  CHRISTIANITY. 


and  makes  the  preexistent  Christ  the  divine  subject  in 
the  theophanies  of  the  Old  Testament,  who  speaks  to 
the  patriarchs  and  to  Moses  out  of  the  fire,  there 
naming  himself  the  self-existent  T  am}  the  character 
of  Justin’s  theology  is  evident.  The  Nicene  creed,  be 
it  remembered,  though  denying  (against  the  Arians) 
that  the  Son  had  a  beginning  of  existence,  and  pre¬ 
dicating  of  him  coequal  divine  perfections,  did  not 
reject  all  subordination.  It  denied  that  sort  of  sub¬ 
ordination  which  would  imply  that  the  Son  is  not  truly 
and  properly  divine,  and  would  reduce  him  to  the  rank 
of  a  creature.  In  Irenaeus  and  Tertullian  we  discover 
the  continued  endeavor  to  grasp  and  combine  the 
various  elements  that  were  involved  in  the  Christian 
faith.  A  oneness  of  the  Son  with  the  Father,  which 
is  yet  not  an  identity — an  elevation  of  the  Son  above 
all  creatures,  above  all  things  made — which  yet  shall 
not  intrench  upon  a  pure  monotheism,  are  obviously 
aimed  at  in  their  doctrinal  constructions.  Origen 
contributes  one  important  element,  a  clear  statement 
of  the  timeless  character  of  the  generation  of  the  Son. 
Finally  the  Nicene  Fathers,  having  before  them  the. 
opposite  errors  of  Arius  and  Sabellius,  hit  upon  a 
statement  which  excludes  both. 

There  is  no  proof  that  the  humanitarian  doctrine 
of  Christ — that  type  of  monarcliianism — ever  prevailed 
extensively  in  the  Church  or  at  any  time  was  the 
creed  of  more  than  a  minor  party,  who  were  out  of 


1  A_poL,  I.  63. 


EARLY  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  PERSON  OF  CHRIST.  337 


sympathy  with  the  general  faith.  Justin  Martyr,  in 
arguing  with  the  Jew,  mentions  that  some,  whom  the 
connection  if  not  the  proper  reading  of  the  text  shows 
to  have  been  converted  Jews,  considered  Christ  to  be 
a  mere  human  prophet.  But  the  whole  tone  of  the 
passage  implies  that  they  constitute  a  small  party  in 
dissent  from  the  great  current  of  belief.  Tertullian,  in 
the  well-known  passage  in  which  he  says  that  the 
unenlightened,  who  always  compose  the  majority  of 
Christians,  are  inclined  to  monarchianism,  being  per¬ 
plexed  by  the  economical  or  hypostatic  trinity- — a 
passage  which  even  Hase  wrongly  applies  to  the 
humanitarian  class — unquestionably  has  in  mind  the 
Patripassianists,  against  whom  his  treatise  is  directed. 
The  same  is  true  of  certain  passages  in  Origen,  which 
have  been  sometimes  quoted  to  prove  the  prevalence 
of  a  humanitarian  theology.1 

1  Tertullian,  adv.  Praxeam ,  c.  3  :  u  Simplices  quique,  ne  dixerim 
imprudentes  et  idiotae,  quae  major  semper  credentium  pars  est, 
quoniam  et  ipsa  regula  fidei  a  pluribus  diis  saeculi  ad  unicum  et  veruru 
Deum  transfer!,  expavescunt  ad  olKovoyiav ,” — the  hypostatic  trinity. 
“  Monarcliiam,  inquiunt,  tenemus.”  Neander  justly  understands  this 
passage  and  corresponding  statements  of  Origen,  as  referring  to  the 
Patripassian  class  of  Monarchians.  See  his  Church  History  (Am. 
transl.),  vol.  I.  p.  578.  The  erroneous  remark  of  Hase  is  in  his 
Kir cheng eschichte,  s.  100. 

The  word  idiotae  has  often  been  mistranslated.  Even  Horsley 
fell  into  the  error  of  rendering  it  idiots— a  slip  which  Priestley  was 
not  slow  to  remind  him  of,  and  which  Horsley  defended  as  well  as 
he  could.  Bentley  caught  Collins  in  a  similar  error.  See  Bentley’s 
Phil.  Lips.,  in  his  collected  Works,  Yol.  III.  p.  263.  Idiota  means 
originally  a  private  person,  in  distinction  from  one  in  public  station  ; 


338  ORIGIN  OF  CATHOLIC  CHRISTIANITY. 

On  the  whole,  we  must  conclude  that  the  historical 
theory  of  Baur,  although  he  has  brought  uncommon 
learning  and  ingenuity  to  the  support  of  it,  is  an 
example,  not  of  historical  divination,  but  rather  of 
arbitrary,  artificial  construction.  It  is  one  more 
illustration  of  the  power  of  a  preconceived  theory  to 
distort  the  perceptions  of  a  strong  understanding. 
Unquestionably,  new  light  has  been  thrown  upon  the 
origin  of  the  Church,  but  nothing  has  been  brought 
forward  which  tends  to  alter  essentially  the  received 
conception  of  early  Christian  history. 

then  an  unenlightened  person — a  man  of  plebeian  understanding. 
Idiot  stands  in  Wicliffe’s  translation,  in  1  Cor.  xiv.  16,  where 
unlearned  is  found  in  our  version.  People  of  this  sort,  Tertullian 
says,  found  it  hard  to  see  the  difference  between  hypostatic  trinity 
and  tritheism.  They  preferred  the  Patripassian  view  because  it  was 


easier. 


ESSAY  YI. 


THE  MYTHICAL  THEORY  OF  STRAUSS.1 

The  peculiar  form  of  unbelief  which  in  our  time 
has  been  brought  forward  to  invalidate  the  testimony 
to  the  miracles  of  the  Gospel,  is  the  Mythical  Theory  ; 
and  the  leading  expounder  and  advocate  of  that  theory 
is  David  Frederic  Strauss.  The  Life  of  Christ,  by 
Strauss,  is  an  extensive  and  elaborate  work.  The 
author,  if  not  a  man  of  the  profound est  learning,  is 
nevertheless  a  trained  and  well-read  theologian. 
Adopting  a  theory  which,  at  least  in  the  breadth  of 
its  application,  is  a  novel  one,  he  yet  skilfully  avails 
himself  of  everything  which  has  been  urged  in  the  way 
of  objection  to  the  truth  of  the  Gospel  history  from  the 
side  of  ancient  or  modern  skepticism.  He  knows  how 
to  weave  into  his  indictment  charges  drawn  from  the 
most  opposite  quarters.  He  is  quite  ready  to  borrow 
aid  from  Woolston,  the  Wolfenbuttel  Fragmentist,  and 
other  deistical  writers,  whose  philosophy  in  general  he 
repudiates.  Thus,  in  his  work,  there  are  brought 

1  Das  Leben  Jesu ,  Tcritisch  bearbeitet ,  von  Dr.  David  Friedrich 
Strauss.  4  A.  Tubingen :  1840. 

Streitschriften  zur  VertJieidigung ,  <.£<?.,  von  Dr.  David  Friedrich 
Strauss.  Tubingen:  1841. 


340 


MYTHICAL  THEORY  OF  STRAUSS. 


together  and  braided  together  the  difficulties  in  the 
New  Testament  history  which  all  past  study  had 
brought  to  light,  and  the  objections  which  the 
ingenuity  of  unbelievers,  from  Celsus  to  Paulus,  had 
found  it  possible  to  suggest.  It  is  the  last  and 
strongest  word  that  skeptical  criticism  will  be  able 
to  utter  against  the  evangelical  narratives.  In  the 
arrangement  and  presentation  of  his  matter,  the  work 
of  Strauss  is  distinguished  by  a  rhetorical  skill  that  is 
rarely  surpassed.  He  knows  what  it  will  do  to  assert 
roundly,  what  is  best  conveyed  by  an  insinuation, 
what  is  more  effectively  suggested  in  the  form  of  an 
inquiry.  He  knows  how  to  put  in  the  foreground 
whatever  seems  to  favor  his  position,  and  to  pass 
lightly  over  considerations  having  a  contrary  tendency. 
The  currency  obtained  by  the  work  of  Strauss,  and  its 
influence,  are  very  much  due,  also,  to  the  transparency 
of  his  style.  In  the  exhibition  of  the  most  complex 
details,  the  remarkable  clearness  and  fluency  that 
belong  to  his  ordinary  composition  are  fully  preserved. 
It  will  not  be  denied  that  Strauss  has  presented  the 
most  plausible  theory  which  can  be  presented  from  the 
unbelieving  side,  and  has  made  it  as  captivating  as  the 
nature  of  the  case  will  admit.  This  theory  we  now 
proceed  to  examine.1 

Although  Strauss  undertakes  to  construct  a  life  of 


1  In  connection  with  Strauss's  principal  work,  the  Streitschriften , 
or  polemical  tracts  in  reply  to  his  reviewers,  which  he  himself  col¬ 
lected  into  a  volume,  will  receive  attention. 


MYTHICAL  THEORY  OF  STRAUSS. 


341 


Christ,  it  is  plain  that  the  great  question  before  his 
mind  is  the  question  of  the  truth  or  falsehood  of  the 
narratives  in  the  New  Testament  which  record  mira¬ 
cles.  Strange  to  say,  he  lays  down  at  the  beginning 
the  critical  canon  that  a  miracle  is  never  to  be  believed, 
and  that  the  narrative  in  which  it  is  found  is,  so  far  at 
least,  unhistorical.  That  is  to  say,  he  begs  the  ques¬ 
tion  which  it  is  one  prime  object  of  his  book  to  discuss. 
His  entire  work  is  thus  a  jpetitio  princijni.  Prom  a 
scientific  point  of  view,  therefore,  it  has,  strictly  speak¬ 
ing,  no  claim  to  consideration.  When  we  call  to  mind 
the  names  on  the  roll  of  science  which  are  counted 
among  the  believers  in  miracles,  such  as  Pascal,  Kep¬ 
ler,  Sir  Isaac  Newton,  not  to  speak  of  names  propor¬ 
tionally  eminent  among  scientific  men  at 'the  present 
day ;  and  when  we  think  how  much  of  the  loftiest  in¬ 
tellect  the  world  has  seen  has  likewise  put  faith  in 
these  New  Testament  narratives  ;  when,  moreover,  we 
remember  that  mankind  have  generally  believed,  and 
do  now  believe,  in  miraculous  events  of  some  sort,  we 
must  pronounce  the  pretended  axiom  that  miracles 
are  impossible,  to  be,  in  every  sense  of  the  word,  an 
assumption.  We  waive  this  point,  however,  and  pro¬ 
ceed  to  consider  the  positive  theory  of  Strauss. 

What  is  a  myth  ?  A  myth  is,  in  form,  a  narra¬ 
tive  ;  resembling,  in  this  respect,  the  fable,  parable, 
and  allegory.  But  unlike  these,  the  idea  or  feeling 
from  which  the  myth  springs,  and  which,  in  a  sense,  it 


342 


MYTHICAL  THEORY  OF  STRAUSS. 


embodies,  is  not  reflectively  distinguished  from  the 
narrative,  but  rather  is  blended  with  it ;  the  latter 
being,  as  it  were,  the  native  form  which  the  idea  or 
sentiment  spontaneously  assumes.  Moreover,  there  is 
no  consciousness  on  the  part  of  those  from  whom  the 
myth  emanates,  that  this  product  of  their  fancy  and 
feeling  is  fictitious.  The  fable  is  a  fictitious  story, 
contrived  to  inculcate  a  moral.  So,  the  parable  is  a 
similitude  framed  for  the  express  purpose  of  represent¬ 
ing  abstract  truth  to  the  imagination.  Both  fable  and 
parable  are  the  result  of  conscious  invention.  In  both, 
the  symbolical  character  of  the  narrative  is  distinctly 
recognized.  Prom  the  myth,  on  the  contrary,  the  ele¬ 
ment  of  deliberation  is  utterly  absent.  There  is  no 
questionings  of  its  reality,  no  criticism  or  inquiry  on 
the  point,  but  the  most  simple,  unreflecting  faith.  A 
like  habit  of  feeling  we  find  in  children,  who,  delight¬ 
ing  in  narrative,  improvise  narrative.  It  is  difficult  for 
us  to  imagine  that  childlike  condition  of  mind  which 
belonged  to  the  early  age  of  nations,  when  the  crea¬ 
tions  of  personifying  sentiment  and  fancy  were  endued, 
in  the  faith  of  those  from  whom  they  sprung,  with  this 
unquestioned  reality.  It  is  almost  as  difficult  as  to 
reproduce  those  states  of  mind  in  which  the  fundamen¬ 
tal  peculiarities  of  language  germinate ;  peculiarities  in 
respect  to  which  the  philological  explorer  can  only  say 
that  so  mankind  in  their  infancy  looked  upon  things 
and  actions.  But  there  is  no  doubt  as  to  the  fact  that 
the  mythologies  had  this  character.  They  are  the 


NATURE  OF  A  MYTH. 


343 


spontaneous  growth  of  childlike  imagination,  originated 
and  cherished  in  the  full,  because  unthinking,  belief  in 
their  reality.  So  the  Greek  mythology  sprung  into 
being.1  The  popular  imagination,  unhindered  by  any 
knowledge  of  laws  and  facts  which  science  could  not 
suggest,  because  science  was  not  born,  peopled  the 
groves  and  mountains,  the  sea  and  air,  with  divinities, 
whose  existence  and  whose  deeds,  forming  the  theme 
of  song  and  story,  were  the  object  of  universal  faith. 
The  ablest  of  the  modern  writers  upon  antiquity,  such 
as  Ott fried  Midler  and  Mr.  Grotc,  have  made  it  clear 
that  frequently  there  was  no  historical  basis  for  these 
mythological  stories,  and  that,  in  the  absence  of  expli¬ 
cit  evidence,  we  have  no  right  to  assume  a  nucleus  of 
fact  at  their  foundation.  They  may  have  been — fre- 

1  The  reader  will  perhaps  be  reminded  of  the  beautiful  lines  of 
Wordsworth : 

“In  that  fair  clime  the  lonely  herdsman,  stretch’d 
Oil  the  soft  grass,  through  half  a  summer’s  day 
With  music  lull’d  his  indolent  repose  ; 

And,  in  some  fit  of  weariness,  if  he, 

When  his  own  breath  was  silent,  chanced  to  hear 
A  distant  strain,  far  sweeter  than  the  sounds 
Which  his  poor  skill  could  make,  his  fancy  fetch’d 
Even  from  the  blazing  chariot  of  the  sun 
A  beardless  youth,  who  touched  a  golden  lute, 

And  fill’d  the  illumined  groves  of  ravishment. 

The  nightly  hunter,  lifting  up  his  eyes 
Towards  the  crescent  moon,  with  grateful  heart 
Call’d  on  the  lovely  wanderer,  who  bestow’d 
That  timely  light  to  share  his  joyous  sport : 

And  hence  a  blooming  goddess  and  her  nymphs.” 


344 


MYTHICAL  THEORY  OF  STRAUSS. 


quently,  at  least,  they  were — the  pure  creation  of  the 
mythopoeic  faculty  ;  the  incarnated  faith  and  feeling  of 
a  primitive  age,  when  scientific  reflection  had  not  yet 
set  bounds  to  fancy.  Science  brought  reflection.  The 
attempt  of  Euemerus  to  clear  the  mythical  tales  of 
improbabilities  and  incongruities,  and  to  find  at  the 
bottom  a  residuum  of  veritable  history,  and  the 
attempts  of  both  physical  and  moral  philosophers 
to  elicit  from  them  an  allegorical  sense,  are,  one  and 
all,  the  fruit  of  that  skepticism  which  culture  brought 
with  it,  and  proceed  upon  a  totally  false  view  of  the 
manner  in  which  the  myths  originate.  When  these 
theories  came  up,  the  spell  of  the  old  faith  was  already 
broken.  They  are  the  efforts  of  Rationalism  to  keep 
up  some  attachment  to  obsolete  beliefs,  or  to  save 
itself  from  conscious  irreverence  or  popular  displeasure. 
A  state  of  mind  had  arisen,  wholly  different  from  that 
which  prevailed  in  the  credulous,  unreflecting,  child¬ 
like  period,  when  a  common  fear  or  faith  embodied 
itself  spontaneously  in  a  fiction  which  was  taken  for 
fact.1 

1  Upon  the  nature  of  the  myth,  see  K.  0.  Muller’s  Prolegomena 
zu  einer  wissenschaftlichen  Mythologie  (1825).  The  recently  pub¬ 
lished  lectures  of  Schelling  on  the  Introduction  to  Mythology  (see 
Schelling’s  Sdmmtliche  Werke ,  II.  Abth.  I.),  are  a  very  able  and 
elaborate  discussion.  Schelling  examines  at  length  the  various 
theories  which  have  been  proposed  to  account  for  the  origin  of 
mythology,  including  those  of  Heyne,  Hermann,  Hume,  Yoss,  Creu- 
zer,  and  others.  He  disproves  all  the  irreligious  hypotheses  and 
expounds  in  an  interesting  and  profound  way  his  own  view,  which  is 
the  same  in  spirit  as  that  of  Muller,  although  the  latter,  in  the  opin- 


ORIGIN  OF  MYTHOLOGY. 


345 


As  we  have  implied,  back  of  the  authentic  history 
of  most  nations  lies  a  mythical  era.  And  whenever 
the  requisite  conditions  are  present,  the  mythopoeic 
instinct  is  active.  The  middle  ages  furnish  a  striking 
example.  The  fountain  of  sentiment  and  fancy  in  the 
uncultured  nations  of  Europe  divaricated,  so  to  speak, 
into  two  channels,  the  religious  myth  and  the  myth  of 
chivalry.  When  we  have  eliminated  from  the  immense 
mass  of  legendary  history  which  forms  the  lives  of  the 
Saints  what  is  due  to  pious  frauds  (though  these  pre¬ 
suppose  a  ready  faith),  and  what  is  historical,  being 
due  to  morbid  or  otherwise  extraordinary  psychological 
states,  and,  if  the  reader  so  pleases,  to  miracle,  there 

ion  of  Schelling  (p.  199),  lias  not  applied  his  theory  to  the  first 
origination  of  the  conceptions  of  the  gods,  but  rather  to  their  mytho¬ 
logical  doings — the  mythological  history.  Schelling  applauds  the 
remarks  of  Coleridge  on  this  subject,  and  says  that  he  gives  the 
latter  a  dispensation  for  the  alleged  free  borrowing  from  his  writings, 
in  return  for  the  single  word  which  Coleridge  has  suggested  as  a 
proper  description  of  myths.  They  are  not  aWegorical,  says  Cole¬ 
ridge,  but  ftmfcgorical.  Schelling  also  maintains  that  the  primitive 
religion  of  mankind  was  “relative  monotheism,”  that  is,  the  worship 
of  one  God  who  is  not  known  in  his  absolute  character.  Thence 
polytheism  arose,  so  that  this  one  God  was  only  the  first  of  a  series. 

We  may  also  refer  the  reader  to  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth 
chapters  of  the  first  volume  of  Grote’s  History  of  Greece.  Mr.  Grote 
show's  the  spontaneity  that  characterizes  the  origin  of  myths.  In 
some  other  important  respects,  his  view  is  defective.  N~o  theory 
that  does  not  explicitly  take  account  of  the  truths  expressed  by  Paul 
in  Romans,  i.  21,  and  Acts,  xvii.  23  seq.,  can  be  considered  satisfac¬ 
tory.  A  religious  nature  in  man  and  a  fall  from  the  communion  of 
the  one  living  God,  must  be  presupposed,  if  we  would  explain  the 
mythologies. 


346 


MYTHICAL  THEORY  OE  STRAUSS. 


still  remain  a  multitude  of  narratives  involving  super¬ 
natural  events,  which  last  have  no  foundation  whatever 
in  fact,  but  were  yet  thoroughly  believed  by  those  from 
whose  fancy,  enlivened  and  swayed  by  religious  senti¬ 
ment,  they  emanated. 

Strauss  was  not  the  first  to  suggest  that  portions  of 
the  biblical  history  are  myths  ;  but  Strauss  it  is  who 
has  applied  the  mythical  theory  in  detail  and  at  length 
to  the  Gospel  narratives,  and  with  the  aid  of  this 
theory  has  attempted  to  divest  the  life  of  Christ  of  all 
supernatural  elements,' — all  these  being  pronounced 
mythological.  Strauss  opposes,,  on  the  one  hand, 
believers  in  the  miracles,  and,  on  the  other,  the  advo¬ 
cates  of  the  so-called  “  natural  exposition,”  of  whom 
Paulus  was  the  chief.  Paulus  was  the  German  Eue- 
merus,  holding  the  New  Testament  narratives  of 
miracles  to  be  erroneous  conceptions  and  amplifica¬ 
tions  of  historical  events  which  really  fell  within  the 
sphere  of  natural  law.  Thus,  the  healing  of  the  blind 
was  accomplished  by  Christ  through  an  efficacious 
powder  applied  to  their  eyes — a  circumstance  which 
was  unnoticed  or  omitted  by  the  lovers  of  the  mar¬ 
vellous  whose  reports  we  have  :  the  fact  at  the  bottom 
of  the  record  of  the  transmuting  of  water  into  wine, 
was  the  gift  of  a  large  amount  of  wine,  which  Christ, 
since  he  was  to  be  attended  by  several  disciples, 
brought  with  him  to  the  wedding  :  instead  of  being 
expected  to  find  a  coin  in  the  mouth  of  the  fish,  Peter 
was  to  obtain  it  by  selling  a  fish  in  the  market,  and 


MYTHICAL  THEORY  OF  STRAUSS. 


347 


the  Gospel  narrative  sprung  from  a  mistaken  view  of 
the  transaction  :  Christ  did  not  walk  on  the  water,  as 
was  supposed,  but  walked  along  the  shore  :  the  so- 
called  transfiguration  Avas  the  effect  on  the  disciples  of 
seeing  Christ  on  a  higher  mountain-peak  which  was 
white  with  snow.  Strange  as  it  may  seem,  abundant 
learning  and  the  utmost  painstaking  were  expended  in 
the  support  of  this  theory,  which,  however,  had  few 
adherents  when  Strauss  gave  it  the  final  death-blow. 
Equal  hostility  is  professed  by  Strauss  to  the  form  of 
infidelity  which  had  charged  the  apostles  and  their 
Master  with  being  wilful  deceivers.  He  joins  with 
the  Christian  believer  in  denouncing  the  coarseness 
and  shallowness  of  that  species  of  unbelief  which  found 
reception  among  pretended  philosophers  of  the  last 
century.  He  will  propound  a  theory  which  involves 
no  such  condemnation  of  the  founders  of  Christianity. 
He  will  propound  a  theory,  moreover,  which  leaves 
untouched  that  inner  substance  of  Christianity  which 
is  alone  valuable  to  the  philosopher.  His  construction 
will  have  the  merit  of  sparing  the  sensibilities  of  the 
believer  who  is  offended  at  hearing  those  whom  he 
reveres,  branded  as  impostors,  and,  at  the  same  time, 
of  relieving  the  men  of  the  nineteenth  century  from 
giving  credence  to  events  which,  it  is  quietly  assumed, 
modern  science  pronounces  to  be  impossible. 

Omitting  minor  details,  some  of  which  we  shall 
have  occasion  to  bring  forward  in  the  progress  of  the 
discussion,  the  principal  points  in  the  doctrine  of 


248 


MYTHICAL  THEORY  OF  STRAUSS. 


Strauss  may  be  briefly  stated.  There  existed  in 
Palestine,  at  the  time  when  Jesus  grew  up  to  man¬ 
hood,  a  wide-spread  expectation  of  the  coming  of  the 
Messiah.  There  was  also  a  defined  conception,  the 
result  of  the  teaching  of  the  Old  Testament  and  of 
later  speculation,  of  the  character  of  his  work.  Among 
other  things,  he  was  to  work  miracles,  such  as  the 
opening  of  the  eyes  of  the  blind,  the  healing  of  the 
sick,  the  raising  of  the  dead ;  and  he  was,  generally, 
to  outdo  the  supernatural  works  ascribed  to  Moses  and 
Elijah  and  the  other  prophets  of  the  former  time. 
Jesus,  who  had  been  baptized  by  John,  became  at 
length  persuaded  that  he  was  the  promised  Messiah. 
Endowed  with  lofty  qualities  of  mind  and  character, 
he  attached  to  himself  disciples  who  shared  in  his 
belief  concerning  himself.  Pie  taught  with  power 
through  the  towns  and  villages  of  Palestine.  But, 
encountering  the  bitter  hatred  of  the  ruling  classes  on 
account  of  his  rebuke  of  their  iniquities,  he  was  seized 
upon  and  put  to  death  under  Pontius  Pilate.  Over¬ 
whelmed  with  grief  and  disappointment,  his  disciples, 
who  had  expected  of  him  a  political  triumph,  were 
finally  comforted  and  inspirited  by  the  mistaken  belief 
that  he  had  been  raised  from  the  dead.  Hence  the 
cause  of  Jesus  was  not  crushed,  but  gradually  gained 
strength.  And  out  of  the  bosom  of  the  young  com¬ 
munity,  filled  with  enthusiastic  attachment  to  their 
slain  and  (as  they  believed)  risen  Lord,  there  sprung 
the  mythical  tales  which  we  find  in  the  Gospels.  Be* 


MYTHICAL  THEORY  OF  STRAUSS. 


349 


lieving  Jesus  to  be  the  Messiah,  they  attributed  to  him 
spontaneously  the  deeds  which  the  prophecies  had 
ascribed  to  that  personage.  In  these  mythical  crea¬ 
tions,  the  formative  idea  was  the  Old  Testament 
description  of  the  Messiah.  This  idea,  coupled  with 
the  faith  in  Jesus,  generated  the  Gospel  history  of 
Christ,  so  far  as  that  is  miraculous,  and  even  exerted 
a  very  important  influence  in  shaping  and  coloring 
circumstances  in  the  narrative  which  are  not  super¬ 
natural.  The  Christ  of  the  New  Testament  is  thus 
the  ideal  Messiah.  He  is  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  glorified 
in  the  feeling  and  fancy  of  disciples  by  the  ascription 
to  him  of  supernatural  power  and  supernatural  deeds, 
such  as  lay  in  the  traditional,  cherished  image  of  the 
Messiah. 

It  should  be  observed  that  Strauss  does  not  reject 
the  supposition  of  a  conscious  invention  in  the  case  of 
certain  features  in  the  New  Testament  reports  of  mira¬ 
cles,  notwithstanding  his  general  disavowal  of  an  intent 
to  impeach  the  moral  character  of  their  authors ;  but 
he  claims  a  very  mild  judgment  for  a  certain  kind  of 
artless,  though  not  wholly  unconscious,  poetizing — the 
arglose  did  dung  of  simple  souls.1  But  how  far  Strauss 
and  his  school  are  able  to  adhere  to  their  canon,  which 
excludes  wilful  deception  from  a  part  in  producing  the 
miraculous  narratives  of  the  Gospel,  will  be  considered 
on  a  subsequent  page. 

The  denial  of  the  genuineness  of  the  four  Gospels 

1  Leben  Jesu ,  B.  I.  s.  95. 


350 


MYTHICAL  THEORY  OF  STRAUSS. 


is  an  essential  part  of  Strauss’s  theory.  They  cannot 
come,  he  maintains,  from  “  eyewitnesses  or  well-informed 
contemporaries.”  The  apostles  could  not  be  deceived 
to  such  an  extent  as  we  should  be  compelled  to  assume, 
if  we  granted  that  the  Gospels  exhibit  their  testimony. 
On  the  subject  of  the  origin  of  the  Gospels,  Strauss  is 
neither  full  nor  clear;  but  this  is  affirmed,  that  they 
are  the  production  of  later,  non-apostolic  writers.  This 
position  he  strives  to  establish  by  a  critical  analysis  and 
comparison  of  these  documents.  The  attempt  is  made 
to  prove  upon  them  such  inconsistencies  with  each 
other,  as  well  as  violations  of  probability,  as  render  it 
impossible  to  suppose  that  they  came  from  the  hand,  or 
bear  the  sanction,  of  the  immediate  followers  of  Christ. 
The  credibility  of  the  Gospels  is  attached,  partly  as 
a  means  of  disproving  their  genuineness.  And  the 
method  of  the  attack  is  to  press  the  point  of  the  im¬ 
probability  of  the  miracles,  while,  at  the  same  time,  the 
untrustworthy  character  of  the  narratives  is  elaborately 
argued  on  other  grounds.  The  Gospels  are  dissected 
with  the  critical  knife,  their  structure  and  contents  are 
subjected  to  a  minute  examination,  for  the  purpose  of 
impressing  the  reader  with  the  conviction  that,  inde¬ 
pendently  of  their  record  of  miracles,  these  histories 
are  too  inaccurate  and  self- contradictory  to  be  relied 
on.  Their  alleged  imperfections  are  skilfully  connected 
with  the  improbable  nature  of  the  events  they  record, 
so  that  the  effect  of  both  considerations  may  be  to  break 
down  their  historic  value. 


DISPROVED  BY  THE  APOSTLES*  FAITH.  351 

Having  thus  stated  the  main  points  in  the  theory 
of  Strauss,  we  proceed  to  set  forth  the  reasons  why  the 
mythical  hypothesis  is  untenable. 

I.  The  belief  of  the  apostles  and  of  Jesus  himself 
that  he  was  the  Messiah,  cannot  be  accounted  for  on 
the  theory  of  Strauss,  and  could  not  have  existed,  were 
the  assumptions  of  that  theory  sound. 

Strauss  puts  his  doctrine  into  a  kind  of  syllogism. 
There  was  a  fixed  idea  that  the  Messiah  would  work 
these  various  miracles ;  there  was  a  fixed  persuasion  in 
the  minds  of  the  disciples  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah; 
hence  the  necessity  that  the  mythopoeic  faculty  should 
attribute  these  miracles  to  him.1  These,  we  are  told, 
were  the  conditions  and  forces  by  which  the  myths 
were  generated.  But  if  it  was  a  fixed  expectation  that 
the  Messiah  would  work  these  miracles,  how  could  the 
disciples  believe  in  Jesus  in  the  absence  of  these  indis¬ 
pensable  signs  of  Messiahship  ?  Recollect  that  this 
persuasion  concerning  the  Messiah  is  represented  to  be 
so  deep  and  universal  as  to  move  the  imagination  of  the 
disciples  of  Jesus,  after  his  death,  to  connect  with  him 
all  these  fictitious  miracles.  How,  then,  were  they 
convinced  of  his  claim  to  be  the  Messiah — so  convinced 
that  their  faith  survived  the  disappointment  of  some 
of  their  strongest  and  fondest  anticipations  relative 
to  his  kingdom,  and  survived  even  the  shock  of  his 
judicial  death?  It  must  be  manifest  to  every  candid 
man  that  Strauss  is  thrown  upon  a  dilemma.  Either 

1  Leben  Jesu ,  B.  I.  s.  94. 


352 


MYTHICAL  THEORY  OF  STRAUSS. 


this  previous  ideal  of  the  Messiah  was  not  so  firmly 
engraved  upon  the  minds  of  the  disciples,  in  which 
case  the  condition  and  motive  for  the  creation  of  myths 
are  wanting  ;  or  being  thus  firmly  fixed,  their  faith  in 
Jesus  through  his  lifetime  proves  that  miracles  were 
really  performed.  A  similar  remark  may  be  made  of 
Jesus  himself,  since  he  is  supposed  to  have  shared,  on 
this  point  at  least,  in  the  common  expectation  respecting 
the  characteristic  works  of  the  Messiah.  How  could 
he  maintain  this  unswerving  faith  in  his  messianic 
calling  and  office,  in  the  absence  of  the  one  principal 
criterion,  the  exercise  of  supernatural  power  ?  To 
avoid  one  difficulty,  the  advocate  of  the  mythical 
hypothesis  creates  another  which  no  ingenuity  can 
remove. 

It  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  Strauss  ignores  this 
difficulty.  He  endeavors  to  answer  the  objection. 
The  impressiveness  of  the  character  and  teaching  of 
Christ  supplied,  in  a  measure,  the  place  of  miracles  so 
long  as  he  was  bodily  present.  But  this  consideration 
is  evidently  felt  to  be  quite  inadequate,  and  hence 
Strauss  makes  prominent  what  he  seems  to  consider  a 
concession.  Jesus,  we  are  informed,  did  calm  and 
relieve  certain  persons  afflicted  with  nervous  disease, 
which  was  thought  to  be  the  fruit  of  demoniacal 
possession.  This  effect  was  wrought,  however,  only  by 
psychological  influence — the  natural  influence  of  a 
strong  and  calm  nature.  Hence,  it  was  only  in  cases 
where  the  type  of  the  disease  was  mild  and  chiefly 


DILEMMA  OF  STRAUSS. 


353 


mental  in  its  origin  that  such  cures  were  effected. 
The  cure  of  a  case  like  that  of  the  maniac  of  Gadara, 
or  the  child  at  the  foot  of  the  Mount  of  Transfiguration, 
would  be  a  miracle,  and  is,  of  course,  excluded.1 
Moreover,  Strauss  finds  it  convenient  to  maintain  that 
the  cure  of  so-called  demoniacs  was  produced  by  others ; 
that,  in  fact,  it  was  not  so  uncommon.  He  appeals  to 
the  instance  narrated  by  Josephus,  of  the  cure  effected 
in  the  presence  of  V espasian,2  and  to  the  question  of 
Christ :  “by  whom  do  your  children  cast  them  out  ?  ” 
So  that,  after  all,  this  relief  of  less  aggravated  forms 
of  nervousness  is  not  a  distinguishing  act  of  Christ 
which  could  serve  to  attest  his  Messiahship.  There 
is  obviously  no  reason,  beyond  the  necessities  of  a 
theory,  why  it  should  be  allowed  that  Christ  relieved 
this  kind  of  infirmity,  to  the  exclusion  of  all  the  other 
instances  of  healing,  together  with  the  raising  of  the 
dead  to  life,  which  are  equally  well  attested.  Nor  are 
we  assisted  to  understand  how  the  disciples  were  so 
easily  satisfied  with  the  omission  of  all  the  other  forms 
of  miracle  which  they  believed  to  be  indissolubly  con¬ 
nected  with  the  Messiah's  appearance.  When  they 
saw  Jesus  pass  by  the  blind,  the  Lame,  the  dumb, 
the  leprous,  even  the  severe  forms  of  demoniacal  frenzy, 
and  do  nothing  greater  than  to  quiet  the  less  afflicted 
subjects  of  nervous  hallucination,  which  others  were  in 
the  habit  of  doing  as  well,  how  could  they  consider 

1  Leben  Jem,  B.  I.  s.  108  ;  B.  II.  s.  43,  45. 

2  Jos.,  Antiq.  VIII.  2,  5. 

23 


354 


MYTHICAL  THEORY  OE  STRAUSS. 


him  the  Messiah?  We  cannot  avoid  perceiving  that 
the  same  cause  which  is  thought  to  have  led  irresistibly 
to  the  forming  of  imaginary  miracles,  would  have 
effectually  precluded  a  faith  not  sustained  by  miracles 
which  were  real. 

II.  The  mythical  theory  is  fully  disproved  by  the 
fact  of  the  absence  of  any  body  of  disciples  to  whom 
the  origination  and  dissemination  of  the  myths  can  be 
attributed. 

The  advocates  of  this  theory  prefer  to  use  vague 
terms  and  phrases  in  speaking  of  the  source  whence 
the  so-called  Christian  mythology  came.  It  sprung, 
says  Strauss,  from  the  enthusiasm  of  the  infant  church. 
But  when  he  is  called  upon  to  explain  his  meaning 
more  precisely,  he  admits  that  neither  the  apostles  nor 
the  community  which  was  under  their  immediate  guid¬ 
ance  could  have  been  the  authors  of  these  fictitious 
narratives.  That  the  followers  of  Christ,  who  had 
attended  him  through  his  public  life,  could  mistakenly 
suppose  themselves  to  have  been  eyewitnesses  of  the 
series  of  miracles  which  the  Gospels  record,  is  too 
much  for  Strauss  to  believe.  He  claims  that  the 
apostles  in  their  Epistles,  or  in  such  as  he  concedes  to 
be  genuine,  do  not  bring  forward  the  prior  miracles, 
but  dwell  on  the  Resurrection  of  Christ.  So  far  as 
they  do  not  speak  of  the  earlier  miracles,  the  circum¬ 
stance  is  readily  explained,  if  we  suppose  them  to  have 
been  familiar  to  the  churches  to  whom  the  apostles 


NONE  TO  ORIGINATE  MYTHS. 


355 


wrote,  and  remember  that,  in  the  view  of  the  apostles, 
the  grand  fact  of  the  Saviour’s  Resurrection  stood  in  the 
foreground,  eclipsing,  as  it  were,  the  displays  of  super¬ 
natural  power  which  had  preceded  it.  In  the  discourses 
of  the  apostles,  recorded  in  Acts,  these  prior  miracles 
are  appealed  to.  But  Strauss,  be  it  observed,  contends, 
and  is  obliged  to  contend,  that  the  apostles  were  igno¬ 
rant  of  any  such  miraculous  events  as  these  which  the 
evangelists  record.  The  myths  did  not  originate  with¬ 
in  the  circle  of  their  oversight  and  influence.  This 
would  be  evidently  true,  whoever  were  disposed  to 
deny  it ;  but  Strauss  concedes  and  claims  that  such  is 
the  fact.  Where,  then,  did  these  myths  grow  up  ? 
Who  were  their  authors  ?  To  this  fundamental  ques¬ 
tion  the  advocates  of  the  mythical  theory  vouchsafe 
only  the  briefest  response.  Yet  Strauss  does  say  that 
they  grew  up  among  the  dwellers  in  more  secluded 
places  in  Galilee  where  Christ  had  tarried  but  a  short 
time,  and  among  those  who  had  occasionally,  or  at  sea¬ 
sons,  companied  with  him.1  There  was,  then,  if  we  are 
to  give  credit  to  the  mythical  hypothesis,  a  community 
of  Jewish-Christian  disciples  in  Palestine,  separate  from 
the  apostles  and  the  Christian  flocks  over  which  they 
presided,  and  in  that  community,  within  thirty  or  forty 
years  after  the  death  of  Christ,  this  extensive  and 
coherent  cycle  of  miraculous  tales  originated.  We  say 
a  community ,  because  a  myth  is  not  the  conscious  in¬ 
vention  of  an  individual,  or  a  conscious  invention  at  all, 
1  Leben  Jesu,  B.  I.  s.  72.  Streitschr .,  s.  46. 


356 


MYTHICAL  THEORY  OF  STRAUSS. 


but  an  offshoot  of  the  collective  faith  and  feeling  of  a 
body  of  people.1  If,  in  certain  cases,  it  proceeds  from 
the  fancy  of  an  individual,  it  is  presupposed  that  he 
stands  in  the  midst  of  a  sympathetic  and  responsive 
community  who  receive  without  scrutiny  whatever  falls 
in  with  the  current  of  their  feelings.  We  say  “  with¬ 
in  thirty  or  forty  years  after  the  death  of  Christ,”  be¬ 
cause  in  this  period  Strauss  himself  places  the  bulk  of 
the  so-called  myths  which  are  found  in  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment.2  Now,  in  reference  to  this  extraordinary  solu¬ 
tion  of  the  enigma  as  to  the  authorship  of  the  myths, 
we  offer  several  remarks. 

In  the  first  place,  it  must  strike  the  reader  as  a 
singular  fact  that  there  is  no  evidence  whatever  of  the 
existence  of  such  a  non- apostolic  Christian  community 
in  the  midst  of  Palestine.  The  assumption  that  a  set 
of  believers  of  this  description  existed  in  Galilee,  re¬ 
moved  from  the  knowledge  and  guidance  of  the  apos¬ 
tles,  is  not  supported  by  the  slightest  proof,  and  is  in 
the  highest  degree  improbable.  The  disciples  of  Christ, 
at  the  time  of  his  death,  were  not  very  numerous. 
There  was  a  sense  of  unity  among  them.  They  formed 
one  body.  Everything  tended  to  draw  them  together. 
And  the  apostles  were  their  recognized  heads.  It  is 
certain,  and  will  hardly  be  questioned  by  any  one,  that 

1  So  Strauss.  It  is  most  essential  to  understand,  he  says,  that  at 
the  foundation  of  the  myth  lies — “kein  individuelles  Bewusstsein, 
sondern  ein  hoheres  allgemeines  Volksbewusstsein,  (Bewusstsein 
einer  religiosen  Gemeinde.”)  Leben  Jesu ,  B.  I.  s.  89. 

2  Streitschr .,  s.  52. 


NONE  TO  ORIGINATE  MYTHS. 


357 


the  other  disciples  looked  up  to  “  the  twelve  ”  as  their 
guides,  and  leaned  on  them  for  support  and  counsel. 

But  how  could  persons  in  the  situation  attributed 
to  these  obscure  disciples,  come  to  believe,  or  remain 
in  the  belief,  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah?  We  have 
shown  the  improbability  that  the  apostles  believed 
without  miracles.  But  the  difficulty  of  supposing 
these  other  hearers  of  Christ  to  have  believed,  in  the 
absence  of  such  evidence  of  his  divine  commission,  is 
much  greater.  It  is  a  part  of  the  hypothesis  that  they 
knew  comparatively  little  of  Jesus,  for  to  allow  them 
an  intimate  knowledge  of  him  would  put  them  in  the 
same  category,  as  to  the  possibility  of  framing  myths, 
with  the  apostles  themselves.  They  had  seen  little  of 
Jesus;  they  had  seen  none  of  the  supernatural  signs 
expected  of  the  Messiah ;  he  had  wholly  disappointed 
their  idea  that  the  Messiah  was  to  be  an  earthly  prince ; 
and,  finally,  he  had  perished  by  the  death  of  a  culprit, 
which  he  endured  without  resistance,  God  not  appear¬ 
ing  to  deliver  him.  Is  it  not  inexplicable  that  casual 
hearers  of  Christ,  who  were  thus  placed,  having  seen, 
be  it  remembered,  no  miracle  for  their  faith  to  rest 
upon,  should  continue  to  believe — believe,  too,  without 
a  misgiving,  with  the  childish  simplicity  and  enthusi¬ 
asm  which  are  requisite  for  the  creation  of  mythological 
tales  ? 

Such  hearers  must  have  originally  cherished  the 
ordinary  expectation  concerning  the  Messiah,  that  he 
would  sit,  in  the  character  of  a  temporal  Prince, 


358 


MYTHICAL  THEORY  OF  STRAUSS. 


upon  the  throne  of  David  and  bring  into  subjec¬ 
tion  the  heathen  nations.  The  myths  they  would 
frame,  if  they  framed  any,  would  be  in  keeping  with 
this  expectation.  A  radical  change  in  their  conception 
of  the  Messiah  would  require  us  to  suppose,  at  least, 
that  they  were  well  acquainted  with  the  actual  career  of 
Jesus.  But  here,  again,  an  acquaintance  of  this  sort 
with  the  real  facts  of  his  history  shuts  out,  by  Strauss’s 
own  admission,  the  possibility  of  their  connecting  with 
his  life  a  cycle  of  myths.1 

But  if  we  admit  what  is  incredible,  that  a  class 
of  disciples  of  this  character  existed,  and  existed  in 
such  circumstances  that  they  actually  produced  through 
the  mythopoeic  faculty,  and  set  in  circulation,  the  nar¬ 
ratives  of  which  we  have  a  record  in  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment,  we  are  not  then  clear  of  half  of  the  difficulty. 
How  can  we  suppose  all  this  to  be  done  with  no 
knowledge  or  interference  on  the  part  of  the  apostles 
and  other  well-informed  contemporaries  to  whom  the 
facts  of  the  life  of  Christ  were  well  known  ?  It  will 
not  be  claimed  that  this  mass  of  mythological  narrative 
was  shut  up  in  the  nooks  and  corners  where  it  came 
into  being.  This  pretended  seclusion  of  the  ill-informed 
believers  in  Christ,  could  hardly  have  been  kept  up  for 
the  whole  generation  during  which  the  apostles  traversed 

1  In  tliis  paragraph  and  in  several  remarks  in  the  paragraphs 
which  immediately  follow  under  this  head,  wc  have  been  anticipated 
by  Professor  Norton,  Internal  Evidence  of  the  Genuineness  of  the 
Gospels,  cb.  i.  He  is  one  of  the  few  writers  in  English  who  have 
correctly  apprehended  Strauss. 


THE  GOSPEL  AS  RECEIVED  BY  THE  GENTILES.  359 


Galilee  and  ministered  to  the  church.  The  Jewish 
Christians  continued  to  come  up  to  Jerusalem  to  the 
great  festivals ;  did  these  Galilean  believers  stay  away 
from  them  ?  How  happens  it,  we  beg  to  know,  that 
this  type  of  belief,  so  foreign  from  that  of  the  eyewit¬ 
nesses  and  authorized  apostles  of  Jesus,  found  no  con¬ 
tradiction  or  exposure  ? 

But  an  objection  still  more  formidable  remains  to 
be  stated.  Prom  whom  did  the  Gentiles  receive  Chris¬ 
tianity,  and  what  type  of  Christianity  did  they  receive  ? 
The  new  religion  had  been  carried  from  Jerusalem  to 
Rome  before  the  death  of  Paul  and  Peter.  Was  it 
from  the  simple  folk  whose  imagination  is  credited  with 
the  origin  of  the  miracles — was  it  from  them  who 
knew  so  little  of  Christ  as  to  indulge  in  these  uncerti¬ 
fied  fancies,  and  too  little  of  the  apostles  to  have  their 
self-delusion  corrected — was  it  from  these  obscure  dis¬ 
ciples  that  Christianity  went  forth  to  the  Gentile  world  ? 
Did  they  have  the  energy  to  assume  the  missionary 
work  confided  to  the  apostles,  while  these  and  all  the 
well-informed  followers  of  the  Messiah  rested  in  idle¬ 
ness  ?  And  had  they  the  ability  to  command  a  hear¬ 
ing  and  to  crown  the  new  religion  with  rapid  and 
glorious  success  ?  It  would  be  preposterous,  in  the 
face  of  probability  and  against  all  the  evidence  we 
possess,  to  assert  this.  The  Christianity  of  the  Gentile 
churches  was  apostolic  Christianity.  Their  teachers 
were  such  as  Peter  and  John,  Paul  and  Barnabas, 
Silas  and  Timothy.  Their  conception  of  the  history 


360 


MYTHICAL  THEORY  OF  STRAUSS. 


of  Christ  on  earth  was  derived  from  the  apostles  and 
the  Christian  believers  associated  with  them.  Now, 
all  of  the  canonical  Gospels,  except  the  first,  are  Gen¬ 
tile  Gospels.  The  third  was  written  by  a  Gentile,  and 
this,  together  with  the  second  and  fourth,  were  written 
for  Gentiles.  Gentile  Christianity  did  not  flow  from 
that  quarter — -that  terra  incognita — where  the  myths 
are  said  to  have  sprung  up  and  been  received.  How 
then  shall  we  account  for  the  character  of  the  Gentile 
Gospels,  and,  in  particular,  for  the  representation  of 
the  life  of  Christ  which  they  contain  !  The  conclusion 
is  inevitable  that  this  representation,  including  the 
narratives  of  miracles,  was  a  part  of  that  Christianity 
which  the  apostles  believed  and  taught.  But  when 
this  admission  is  made,  the  mythical  theory  breaks 
down  ;  since,  as  we  have  before  mentioned,  Strauss 
admits  that,  in  case  these  narratives  are  false,  apostles 
and  others  who  were  well  acquainted  with  Christ  could 
neither  have  originated  them  nor  have  been  persuaded 
to  lend  them  credence. 

III.  The  genuineness  of  the  canonical  Gospels,  the 
proof  of  which  it  is  found  impossible  to  invalidate,  is 
a  decisive  argument  against  the  mythical  theory. 

Considering  the  importance  of  the  subject,  the 
observations  of  Strauss  upon  the  authorship  and  date 
of  the  Gospels  are  very  meagre.  ITe  denies,  indeed, 
that  we  can  prove  a  general  circulation  of  Gospel 
histories  during  the  lifetime  of  the  apostles,  or  that 


GENUINENESS  OE  THE  CANONICAL  GOSPELS.  801 

our  present  Gospels  were  known  to  them.1  At  one 
time  he  was  inclined  to  admit  that  John  was  the  author 
of  the  fourth  Gospel,  but  seeing,  probably,  the  fatal  con¬ 
sequences  resulting  to  his  theory  from  this  concession, 
he  withdrew  it  in  a  subsequent  edition.  But  the  propo¬ 
sition  that  John  wrote  the  Gospel  which  bears  his  name, 
is  supported  by  such  an  array  of  external  and  internal 
evidence  as  must  convince  an  unprejudiced  mind  of 
its  truth.  In  respect  to  this  Gospel,  Strauss  and  his 
friends  are  obliged  to  abandon  the  mythical  hypothesis 
and  to  pronounce  its  contents  the  deliberate  fabrica¬ 
tions  of  a  pretender  who  chose  to  subserve  a  doctrinal 
interest  by  assuming  the  character  of  John.  The 
needless  audacity  which  would  lead  a  literary  impostor 
in  the  second  century  to  present  a  view  of  the  course 
of  Christ’s  life,  which  when  compared  with  the  previous 
established  conception,  is,  in  many  respects,  so  original 
and  peculiar,  and  his  complete  success  in  winning  the 
confidence  of  the  churches  in  all  quarters  of  the  Homan 
world,  are  mysteries  not  to  be  explained.  The  patristic 
testimonies  to  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospels  of  Luke 
and  of  Mark,  as  well  as  to  the  relation  in  which  they 
severally  stood  to  Paul  and  Peter,  cannot  be  success¬ 
fully  impugned.  Luke’s  preface  to  his  Gospel  har¬ 
monizes  with  the  tradition  of  the  church  concerning 
him.  His  informants,  he  there  states,  were  immediate 
disciples  of  Christ.  He  had  acquired  from  the  original 
sources  “  a  perfect  understanding  ”  of  the  matters  on 


1  Leben  Jesu ,  B.  I.  s.  72. 


362 


MYTHICAL  THEORY  OF  STRAUSS. 


which  he  wrote.  Of  Mark  and  his  Gospel,  we  have 
an  early  account  in  the  fragment  of  Papias,  whose  birth 
fell  within  the  apostolic  age,  and  who  drew  his  infor¬ 
mation  from  the  contemporaries  and  associates  of  the 
apostles.1  When  Papias  states  that  Mark,  having  been 
the  interpreter  of  Peter,  and  derived  his  knowledge  of 
Christ  from  him,  wrote  down  ‘c  the  things  spoken  or 
done  by  our  Lord,”  though  not  observing,  as  to  the 
discourses  at  least,  the  historical  order,  he  describes, 
without  doubt,  our  second  Gospel.2  If  there  are  criti¬ 
cal  questions  pertaining  to  the  authorship  of  the  first 
Gospel,  about  which  even  believing  scholars  are  not 
yet  agreed,  it  is  even  more  evident  concerning  this 
than  any  of  the  others  that  it  emanates  from  the  bosom 
of  the  apostolic  Church.  Of  this,  the  evidence,  exter¬ 
nal  and  internal,  leaves  no  room  for  doubt.3 

Renan,  in  his  recent  Life  of  Christ,  has  the 

1  Whether  Papias  was,  or  was  not,  acquainted  with  the  Apostle 
John  himself,  is  a  disputed  point.  Irenaeus  affirms  it,  hut  Eusebius 
is  inclined  to  consider  his  statement  an  uncertain  inference  from  the 
language  of  Papias.  Euseb.,  Lib.  III.  c.  39. 

2  Whether  the  want  of  historical  order  is  attributed  by  Papias  to 
the  record  of  the  “things  said”  alone,  or  of  “the  things  done”  as 
well,  depends  on  the  sense  of  Adyta  in  the  passage — a  question  which 
we  have  elsewhere  considered. 

3  The  critical  questions  to  which  we  allude,  are  clearly  stated  by 
Meyer  in  the  Einl.  to  his  Com.  on  Matt.,  and  Bleek  in  his  Einl.  in  d. 
AT.  T.  These  questions  do  not  affect  the  date  of  the  Gospel,  nor  its 
origin  in  the  apostolic  Church.  Meyer’s  view  depends  on  his  restric¬ 
tion  of  the  sense  of  Adyta — in  the  ra  Adyta  owera^aro  of  Papias — 
which  is  not  made  out.  On  the  other  hand,  Bleek’s  hypothesis  leaves 
the  early  tradition  concerning  the  authorship  unexplained. 


renan’s  concessions.  363 

candor  to  acknowledge  the  early  date  of  the  evangelical 
histories,  and,  in  general,  though  his  views  are  here 
not  free  from  inconsistency  as  well  as  error,  their 
apostolical  origin.  He  says  that  the  composition  of 
the  Gospels  was  “  one  of  the  most  important  events 
to  the  future  of  Christianity  which  occurred  during  the 
second  half  of  the  first  century }  As  to  Luke,  “  doubt 
is  hardly  possible.” 2  “  The  author  of  this  Gospel  is 

certainly  the  same  as  the  author  of  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles.  Now  the  author  of  the  Acts  is  a  companion 
of  St.  Paul,  a  title  perfectly  suited  to  Luke.”  “  One 
thing  at  least  is  beyond  doubt,  that  the  author  of  the 
third  Gospel  and  of  the  Acts  is  a  man  of  the  second 
apostolic  generation.”  “  Chapter  xxL,  inseparable  from 
the  rest  of  the  work,  was  certainly  written  after  the 
siege  of  Jerusalem,  but  soon  after .”  “But  if  the 
Gospel  of  Luke  is  dated,  those  of  Matthew  and  Mark 
are  also  ;  for  it  is  certain  that  the  third  Gospel  is  pos¬ 
terior  to  the  first  two,  and  presents  the  character 
of  a  compilation  ( redaction )  much  more  advanced.”  3 

1  P.  xiv.  2  P.  xvi. 

s  Although  we  have  more  fully  discussed  these  questions  in  other 
parts  of  this  volume,  we  may  observe  here  that  whatever  Papias 
meant  by  the  \6yia  of  Matthew — whether  the  discourses  alone,  or  the 
narratives  also — Renan  errs  decidedly  in  saying  that  the  Matthew 
which  was  known  to  Papias  was  simply  the  discourses  (in  Hebrew). 
When  Papias  says  that  the  \6yia  were  written  in  Hebrew  and 
T]pp.rjV€vae  S'  avra  cos  rj^uvaro  eKaaros ,  he  speaks  of  things  ill  the  past. 
It  is  certain  that  Papias  had  the  first  Gospel  in  its  complete  form,  in 
the  Greek.  (See  Meyer’s  Einl.  z.  Matt.,  s.  11.  H.)  It  is  certain  that 
the  first  Gospel  had  its  present  form  before  the  date  of  the  destruc- 


364 


MYTHICAL  THEORY  OF  STRAUSS. 


Mark,  we  are  told,  “  though  not  absolutely  free  from 
later  additions,  is  essentially  as  he  wrote  it.”  “  He  is 

tion  of  Jerusalem.  (Meyer,  Einl.  z.  Matt.,  s.  21.)  But  Renan  con¬ 
cedes  that  the  second  Gospel  is  “but  a  slightly  modified  reproduc¬ 
tion  ”  of  “the  collection  of  anecdotes  and  personal  information  which 
Mark  wrote  from  Peter’s  reminiscences.”  P.  22.  There  is  no 
proof  whatever  that  Mark’s  work  has  undergone  any  “modification,” 
if  we  except  one  or  two  passages  which  are  thought  by  critics  to  be 
interpolated.  The  school  of  Baur  have,  to  be  sure,  made  Papias 
refer  to  an  “Ur-Markus,”  a  work  supposed  to  be  prior  to,  and  the 
basis  of,  our  second  Gospel.  But  our  Mark  corresponds  to  the  des¬ 
cription  given  by  Papias;  so  that  the  sole  argument  of  the  Baur 
school  for  their  view  is  unfounded.  The  writers  of  the  second  cen¬ 
tury  know  nothing  of  any  other  work  ascribed  to  Mark  except  our 
second  Gospel.  It  is  an  incontrovertible  fact  that  this  Gospel  was 
composed  by  John  Mark,  an  associate  of  the  apostles.  The  Baur  school 
have  made  an  attempt,  which  we  are  justified  in  terming  desperate , 
to  bring  down  the  date  of  the  writings  of  Luke  to  the  early  part  of 
the  second  century.  But  apart  from  all  the  other  evidences  in  the 
case,  Baur’s  own  method  of  argument  requires  him  to  suppose,  and 
he  does  suppose,  that  the  generation — yevea — spoken  of  in  Luke  xxi. 
32,  still  subsisted  when  the  Gospel  was  written.  But  this  term  will 
not  bear  the  loose  sense  which  he  gives  it.  We  have  set  forth  in 
another  Essay  the  proof  of  the  early  date  of  the  Acts.  It  is  enough 
to  state  here,  that  the  circumstance  of  the  writer’s  making  no  use  of 
the  Epistles  of  Paul,  in  composing  his  work,  is  an  insoluble  fact  on 
Baur’s  theory.  It  is  an  incontrovertible  fact  that  the  third  Gospel 
and  the  Acts  were  written  by  Luke ,  an  associate  of  Paul.  The  con¬ 
jecture  of  Renan  that  the  first  two  Gospels  gradually  borrowed 
anecdotes  from  each  other,  would  be  inconsistent  with  the  agreement 
in  the  copies  of  each  which  were  extant  in  the  different  parts  of  the 
world  in  the  third  century,  and  is,  moreover,  supported  by  no  proof. 
But  in  holding  that  Luke  was  composed  about  the  year  70,  that  Mark 
remains  substantially  as  he  wrote  it,  and  that  both  Matthew  and 
Mark  are  earlier  than  Luke,  Renan  admits  all  that  we  ask  in  the 
present  discussion. 


renan’s  concessions.  365 

full  of  minute  observations  coining  without  doubt  from 
an  eyewitness.  Nothing  opposes  the  idea  that  this 
eyewitness,  who  evidently  had  followed  Jesus,  who  had 
loved  him  and  known  him  intimately,  and  who  had 
preserved  a  lively  image  of  him,  was  the  Apostle  Peter 
himself,  as  Papias  says.”  1  If  the  view  presented  by 
Renan  concerning  the  origin  of  the  fourth  Gospel  is 
less  satisfactory,  it  is  yet  sufficient  for  the  refutation  of 
the  leading  propositions  of  Strauss.  He  holds  that 
“  in  substance  this  Gospel  issued,  towards  the  end  of 
the  third  century,  from  the  great  school  of  Asia  Minor, 
which  held  to  John— that  it  presents  to  us  a  version 
of  the  Master’s  life,  worthy  of  high  consideration  and 
often  of  preference.” 2  If  the  work  was  not  by  John, 
there  is  “  a  deception  which  the  author  confessed  to 
himself” — a  literary  fact,  says  Renan,  unexampled  in 
the  apostolic  world.  The  Tubingen  doctrine  of  its 
being  “a  theological  thesis  without  historical  value”  is 
not  borne  out,  but  rather  refuted,  by  an  examination 
of  the  work.3  In  a  “multitude  of  cases,”  it  sheds 
needed  light  upon  the  Synoptics.  “  The  last  months 
of  the  life  of  Jesus,  in  particular,  are  explained  only  by 
John.”  The  school  of  John  was  “better  acquainted 
with  the  external  circumstances  of  the  life  of  the 
founder  than  the  group  whose  memories  made  up  the 
synoptic  Gospels.  It  had,  especially  in  regard  to  the 
sojourns  of  Jesus  at  Jerusalem,  data  which  the  others 
did  not  possess.”  4  The  conclusion  appears  to  be  that 

1  P.  xxxviii.  2  P.  xx y.  3  P.  xxix.  4  P.  xxxiii. 


366 


MYTHICAL  THEORY  OF  STRAUSS. 


the  narrative  portions  of  the  fourth  Gospel  are  from 
the  pen  of  John ;  and  as  to  Renan’s  opinion  of  the 
origin  of  the  discourses,  we  are  left  in  doubt,  for  now 
he  attributes  them,  and  now  denies  them,  to  John. 
As  to  the  last  point,  the  record  of  the  discourses  is 
obviously  from  the  same  pen  that  wrote  the  rest  of  the 
Gospel  and,  also,  the  first  Epistle  which  bears  the 
name  of  John,  the  genuineness  of  which  Renan  will 
not  deny.  The  statements  of  Renan  in  respect  to  the 
origin  of  the  Gospels  approximate  to  the  truth.  They 
are  the  admissions  of  a  man  of  learning  and  a  skeptic. 
They  demolish  the  mythical  theory  as  defined  by 
Strauss.  The  evidence  which  proves  the  Gospels  to  be 
the  productions  of  the  apostles  or  their  associates,  at  the 
same  time  subverts  an  essential  part  of  that  theory. 
In  truth,  every  argument  for  the  genuineness  of  the 
Gospels  is  just  as  strong  an  argument  for  their  credi¬ 
bility. 

IV.  The  mythical  hypothesis  falls  to  the  ground 
from  the  lack  of  a  sufficient  interval  between  the  death 
of  Christ  and  the  promulgation,  in  a  written  as  well  as 
oral  form,  of  the  narratives  of  miracles. 

We  were  led,  under  the  last  head,  in  speaking  of 
the  genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  to  allude  to  the  subject 
of  their  date.  There  are  grave  difficulties  connected 
with  the  twenty-fourth  and  twenty-fifth  chapters  of 
Matthew,  but  the  apologist  has,  perhaps,  a  compensa¬ 
tion  in  the  demonstration  afforded  bv  them  that  the 


NO  TIME  FOR  A  MYTHOLOGY  TO  ARISE. 


867 


document  of  which,  they  are  a  part  was  composed  in 
its  present  form  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem. 
The  date  of  Luke,  as  before  observed,  is  not  far  from 
that  of  Matthew.  But  wTe  discover  on  inspection  that 
a  large  portion  of  the  matter  contained  in  each  of  the 
first  three  Gospels  appears,  frequently  in  identical  lan¬ 
guage,  in  the  other  two.  Among  the  various  hypothe¬ 
ses  suggested  to  account  for  this  peculiarity,  it  is  held 
by  some  that  Matthew  was  the  earliest  written  of  the 
three,  and  that  a  portion  of  Matthew  was  incorporated 
by  Mark  and  Luke  in  their  Gospels ;  while  others 
maintain  that  Mark  was  the  original  Gospel  and  fur¬ 
nished  the  other  two  with  the  matter  that  is  common 
to  all.  It  has  bem,  however,  contended  with  much 
force  of  argument,  that  prior  to  the  composition  of 
either  of  the  three,  an  original  gospel,  containing  the 
matter  to  which  we  refer,  must  have  existed,  and  existed 
in  a  written  form.  This  earlier  record  of  the  teachings 
and  miracles  of  Christ  antedates,  therefore,  our  present 
Gospels,  and  is  a  written  monument  standing  still  nearer 
the  events.  But  whether  this  be,  or  be  not,  the  true 
solution  of  the  peculiarity  in  question,  we  have  from 
Luke  decisive  proof  of  the  early  composition  of  written 
histories  of  Christ,  in  which  the  miracles  had  a  place. 
“Many”  such  histories  of  what  was  “surely  believed’’ 
in  the  apostolic  church,  Luke  states,  had  already  been 
composed.  The  Hebraized  diction  of  various  parts  of 
his  Gospel,  differing  from  his  own  style,  is  a  sufficient 
proof  that  he  wrought  into  it  portions  of  prior  records. 


368 


MYTHICAL  THEORY  OF  STRAUSS. 


This  information,  which  comes  from  Luke,  be  it  remem¬ 
bered,  only  a  few  years  after  the  death  of  Paid, 
implies  that  there  had  been  a  desire  among  Christians 
for  authentic  lives  of  Christ,  and  that  numerous  narra¬ 
tives  had  been  written  to  meet  the  want.  It  has  been 
made  probable,  we  may  add,  that  the  Apostle  Paul 
made  use  of  a  written  gospel,  and  although  we  cannot 
affirm  that  this  document  was  more  than  a  collection 
of  the  sayings  and  discourses  of  Christ,1  yet  the  exist¬ 
ence  of  it  is  an  indication  of  the  necessity  that  must 
have  been  felt  for  authentic  records  of  the  life  of  the 
Lord,  and,  also,  of  the  ease  with  which,  owing  to  the 
spread  of  Greek  culture,  this  demand  could  be  satisfied. 
For,  as  Neander  observes,  this  was  not  the  age  of  the 
rhapsodist,  but  an  age  of  written  composition. 

We  are  thus,  through  the  testimony  of  Luke,  in 
our  search  for  written  narratives  of  the  miracles  of 
Christ,  brought  back  into  the  heart  of  the  apostolic  age 
and  to  a  point  of  time  not  far  from  the  events 
themselves.  We  are  obliged  to  allow  that  the  New 
Testament  miracles  were  not  only  believed  by  the 
generation  of  Christians  contemporary  with  the  apostles 
arid  under  their  guidance,  but  were,  also,  within  twenty 
or  thirty  years,  at  the  longest,  after  the  death  of  Jesus 
recorded  in  written  narratives.  Now  this  interval  is 
altogether  too  short  for  the  growth  of  a  Christian 
mythology.  Unlike  something  made  by  the  will,  this 

1  See  Neander’s  Lelen  Jesu ,  s.  10.  PJlanz.  u.  Lett.  cl.  Kirche ,  s. 
173  seq. 


DISPROVED  BY  THE  CHARACTER  OF  THE  TIMES.  3G9 


must  be  the  fruit  of  a  long  brooding  over  the  incidents 
in  the  career  of  Christ  and  the  prophecies  relating  to 
him.  We  cannot  conceive  this  cloud  of  myths  to 
arise,  when  the  real  circumstances  in  the  life  of  Christ 
had  just  occurred  and  were  fresh  in  the  recollection  of 
those  who  had  known  him.  The  sharp  outlines  of  fact 
must  first  be  effaced  from  memory  before  the  humble 
career  of  Jesus  could  be  invested  by  the  imagination 
with  a  misty,  unreal  splendor.  The  sudden  ascription 
to  him  of  these  numerous  acts  of  miraculous  power 
would  be  a  psychological  wonder.  Strauss  is  not 
insensible  to  the  force  of  this  objection.  His  answer 
is  that  these  narratives  were,  in  a  sense,  prepared  in 
the  messianic  expectations  of  the  people,  and  it  was 
only  needful  that  they  should  be  connected  with  Jesus. 
But  there  is  a  wide  gulf  between  the  general  anticipa¬ 
tion  that  the  Messiah,  when  he  should  coine,  would 
heal  the  different  forms  of  disease  and  outdo  the  works 
of  the  old  prophets,  and  the  concrete,  circumstantial 
narratives  which  we  find  in  the  Gospels.  Strauss  fails, 
therefore,  to  evade  the  force  of  the  objection,  and  it 
stands,  an  insurmountable  obstacle  in  the  way  of  his 
theory. 

Y.  The  mythical  theory  is  incompatible  with  the 
character  of  the  times  in  which  Christ  appeared. 

It  was  an  historical  age  ;  that  is,  an  age  in  which 

history  is  studied,  historical  truth  discriminated  from 

error,  evidence  weighed ;  an  age  in  which  skepticism 

24 


370 


MYTHICAL  THEORY  OF  STRAUSS. 


is  found ;  in  which,  also,  written  records  exist.  It 
was  the  age  of  Tacitus  and  Josephus  ;  the  age  when 
the  influence  of  Greek  culture  and  Roman  law  were 
felt  to  the  remotest  hounds  of  the  empire.  It  was, 
moreover,  an  age  when  history  had  seemingly  run  its 
course  and  the  process  of  decay  had  set  in.  How 
unlike  the  periods  when  a  people,  given  up  to  the 
sway  of  sentiment  and  imagination,  builds  up  its 
mythologic  creations,  never  raising  the  question  as 
to  their  truth  or  falsehood  !  Let  us  hear  Mr.  Grote 
upon  the  characteristics  of  a  myth-producing  age. 
“  The  myths,”  writes  the  historian,  “  were  generally 
produced  in  an  age  which  had  no  records,  no  philoso¬ 
phy,  no  criticism,  no  canon  of  belief,  and  scarcely  any 
tincture  of  astronomy  or  geography  ;  but  which,  on 
the  other  hand,  was  full  of  religious  faith,  distinguished 
for  quick  and  susceptible  imagination,  seeing  personal 
agents  where  we  only  look  for  objects  and  laws  ; — an 
age,  moreover,  eager  for  new  narrative,  accepting  with 
the  unconscious  impressibility  of  children  (the  question 
of  truth  or  falsehood  being  never  formally  raised),  all 
which  ran  in  harmony  with  its  preexisting  feelings, 
and  penetrable  by  inspired  poets  and  prophets  in  the 
same  proportion  that  it  was  indifferent  to  positive 
evidence.” 1  It  is  true  that  the  operation  of  the 
inytliopoeie  faculty  is  not  absolutely  extinct  in  a  more 
cultured  time  ;  yet  its  peculiar  province  is  the  child¬ 
hood  of  a  people.  As  Grote  elsewhere  says,  “  to 

1  Grote,  Yol.  I.  p.  451. 


CHARACTER  OF  A  MYTHICAL  ERA. 


371 


understand  properly  tlie  Grecian  myths,  we  must 
try  to  identify  ourselves  with  the  state  of  mind  of  the 
original  mythopceic  age ;  a  process  not  very  easy, 
since  it  requires  us  to  adopt  a  string  of  poetical 
fancies  not  simply  as  realities,  but  as  the  governing 
realities  of  the  mental  system  ;  yet  a  process  which 
would  only  reproduce  something  analogous  to  our  own 
childhood.”  Of  the  point  of  view  from  which  the 
myths  were  looked  upon  by  the  Greek,  he  adds : 
“  Nor  need  we  wonder  that  the  same  plausibility 

which  captivated ,  his  imagination  and  his  feelings  was 

* 

sufficient  to  engender  spontaneous  belief ;  or  rather 
that  no  question  as  to  the  truth  or  falsehood  of  the 
narrative  suggested  itself  to  his  mind.  His  faith  is 
ready,  literal,  and  nninquiring,  apart  from  all  thought 
of  discriminating  fact  from  fiction/’  If  we  turn  to  the 
age  of  Augustus,  we  find  a  condition  of  society  at  a 
world-wide  remove  from  this  primitive  era  of  sentiment 
and  fancy.  Some  are  deceived  by  the  supposed 
analogy  of  the  middle  ages,  which,  however,  were 
wholly  different,  and  more  resembled  the  ancient 
nations  in  their  period  of  immaturity.  The  Greek 
and  Roman  literature  and  science  had  passed  away. 
Christianity,  with  its  doctrines  and  miracles,  had  been 
received  by  the  fresh,  uncivilized  peoples  of  Europe, 
and  these,  full  of  the  new  sentiments  and  beliefs  which 
were  awakened  by  Christianity,  dwelling,  so  to  speak, 
in  an  atmosphere  of  the  supernatural,  created-  the  mass 
of  mythical  stories  which  fill  up  the  voluminous  lives 


372 


MYTHICAL  THEORY  OF  STRAUSS. 


of  the  saints.  It  was  the  work  of  unlettered,  imagina¬ 
tive,  uninqniring  peoples,  on  the  basis  and  under  the 
stimulus  of  the  miraculous  history  of  the  Gospels. 
“  Such  legends,”  says  Mr.  Grote,  “  were  the  natural 
growth  of  a  religious  faith,  earnest,  unexamining,  and 
interwoven  with  the  feelings  at  a  time  when  the  reason 
does  not  need  to  be  cheated.  The  lives  of  the  saints 
bring  us  even  back  to  the  simple  and  ever-operative 
theology  of  the  Homeric  age.”  1  Totally  different  was 
the  state  of  things  among  the  old  nations  at  the  advent 
of  Christianity.  We  must  not  forget  that,  so  far  as 
intellectual  development  is  concerned,  along  with  the 
downfall  of  ancient  civilization  the  tides  of  history 
rolled  back.  New  nations  came  upon  the  stage  and 
a  period  of  childhood  ensued.  Dr.  Arnold,  writing 
to  Bunsen,  points  out  the  anachronism  involved  in 
Strauss’s  theory.  “  The  idea,”  exclaims  Arnold,  “  of 
men  writing  mythic  histories  between  the  time  of  Livy 
and  Tacitus,  and  of  St.  Paul  mistaking  such  for  reali- 


1  Grote,  Yol.  I.  p.  471.  As  to  tlie  loose  habit  of  observation  and 
great  inaccuracy  of  mediaeval  writers  in  describing  ordinary  objects, 
which  justly  excite  incredulity  in  regard  to  their  stories  of  miracles, 
see  Dr.  Arnold’s  Lectures  on  History ,  p.  128.  He  gives  an  instance 
of  this  carelessness  from  Bede,  who  was  reputed  the  most  learned 
man  of  his  age.  “I  cannot  think,”'  says  Arnold,  “  that  the  unbeliev¬ 
ing  spirit  of  the  Roman  world  was  equally  favorable  to  the  origina¬ 
tion  and  admission  of  stories  of  miracles  with  the  credulous  tenden¬ 
cies  of  the  middle  ages.”  (P.129.)  No  doubt  bodily  austerities, 
vigils,  fastings,  and  the  like,  together  with  the  spirit  of  unbounded 
credulity,  might  produce  extraordinary  phenomena,  which  could 
easily  be  mistaken  for  miracles. 


CHARACTER  OF  A  MYTHICAL  ERA.  373 

ties  !  ” 1  Strauss  labors  hard  to  create  a  different 
impression  in  respect  to  the  character  of  the  age  of  the 
apostles.  He  appeals  to  the  occasional  mention  of 
prodigies  by  Tacitus  and  Josephus — as  the  super¬ 
natural  sights  and  sounds  attending  the  capture  of 
Jerusalem.  But  if  current  reports  of  this  sort  of 
preternatural  manifestation  convict  an  age  of  an  unhis- 
torical  spirit,  there  is  no  state  of  society  that  would 
not  be  liable  to  this  charge.  Even  skeptics,  like 
Hobbes,  have  not  escaped  the  infection  of  superstitious 
fear.  These  passages  in  Josephus  and  Tacitus  are 
chiefly  remarkable  as  being  exceptions  to  the  ordinary 
style  of  their  narratives.  Strauss  endeavors  to  make 
much  of  the  two  alleged  miracles  of  Vespasian,  at 
Alexandria,  which  are  noticed  by  Tacitus  and  also  by 
Suetonius.  But  whatever  may  have  been  the  fact  at 
the  bottom,  the  circumstances  in  the  narrative  of 
Tacitus  afford  a  striking  exemplification  of  the  histor¬ 
ical  spirit  of  the  times,  and,  thus,  of  the  falsehood  of 
Strauss’s  general  position.  When  the  application  was 
made  to  Vespasian  by  the  individuals  on  whom  the 
cures  are  said  to  have  been  wrought,  he  laughed  at 
their  request  and  “  treated  it  with  contempt.”  2  The 


1  Life  and  Correspondence  of  Arnold,  p.  293,  N. 

2  Vespasian  behaved  like  William  of  Orange,  who  sneered  at  the 
old  practice  of  touching  for  the  king’s  evil.  This  behavior  of  William 
gave  great  scandal  to  not  a  few.  (See  Macaulay’s  Hist .  of  England, 

■  Harper’s  ed.,  Vol.  III.  p.  432  seq.).  Many  invalids  resorted  to  the 
king  to  be  touched.  Yet  who  will  infer  that  the  age  of  William  was 


374 


MYTHICAL  THEORY  OF  STRAUSS. 


applicants  being  importunate  in  tlieir  request,  and 
pretending  to  make  it  by  the  direction  of  the  god 
Serapis,  Vespasian  had  a  talk  with  the  physicians,  who 
stated  the  nature  of  the  diseases  and  were  quite  non¬ 
committal  on  the  question  whether  the  Emperor  could 
effect  a  cure  in  the  manner  desired.  The  entire 

i 

passage  in  Tacitus  shows  at  least  a  full  consciousness 
that  the  event  is  wholly  anomalous  and  not  to  be 
accepted  without  satisfactory  proof.  The  truth  is, 
that  the  creative  period  in  the  ancient  nations  wThen 
the  mythological  religions  sprung  up,  had  long  ago 
passed  by.  Even  the  belief  in  them  was  fast  crum¬ 
bling  away  and  yielding  to  skepticism.  This  engen¬ 
dered,  to  be  sure,  a  superstition  to  fill  up  the  void 
occasioned  by  the  destruction  of  the  old  belief.  Hence 
magic  and  sorcery  were  rife.  The  professors  of  the 
black  art,  to  use  a  more  modern  phrase,  drove  a 
lucrative  business,  and  found  credulous  followers,  as 
the  apostles  discovered  in  their  missionary  journeys. 
But  this  despairing  superstition  was  a  phenomenon 
lying  at  the  opposite  pole  from  that  action  of  the 
mythopoeic  tendency  which  belongs,  as  we  have 
explained,  to  the  freshness  of  youth.  Pilate  spoke 


not  an  “  historical  ”  age,  or  suppose  that  a  mythology  could  have 
arisen  in  England  in  the  seventeenth  century  and  established  itself  in 
the  popular  faith  ? 

It  is  remarkable  how  often  the  cures  by  Vespasian  have  been 
made  to  figure  in  skeptical  treatises.  Hume  dwells  on  them  in  his  . 
Essay  on  Miracles. 


'THE  AGE  OF  THE  GOSPELS  NOT  MYTHOPCEIC.  375 


out  the  feelings  of  the  cultivated  Roman  in  the 
skeptical  question,  What  is  truth  ?  Nor  is  Strauss 
more  successful  in  the  attempt  to  find  among  the 
Jews,  in  particular,  a  condition  of  society  suitable  for 
the  origination  of  myths.  Prophecy  had  long  since 
died  out.  A  stiff  legalism,  with  its  “  traditions  of  the 
elders,”  had  chilled  the  free  movement  of  religious 
life.  Nor  is  it  true  that  among  the  Jews,  in  the  time 
of  Christ,  a  miracle  had  only  to  be  stated  to  be  be¬ 
lieved.  Miracles  (unless  exorcism  be  reckoned  one) 
were  not  supposed  to  occur.  They  were  considered 
to  belong  to  an  era  of  their  history  long  past.  A 
miracle  was  an  astounding  fact.  “  Since  the  world 
began,”  it  was  said  (John  ix.  32),  “  w7as  it  not  heard 
that  any  man  opened  the  eyes  of  one  that  was  born 
blind.” 1  The  Gospels  are  full  of  parables,  allegories, 
showing  a  state  of  mind,  in  teacher  and  hearer,  incon¬ 
sistent  with  the  production  of  myths.  In  the  parable, 
the  idea  is  held  in  an  abstract  form,  and  a  fiction  is 
contrived  to  represent  it.  Ottfried  Muller,  in  answer 
to  the  question,  how  long  the  myth-building  spirit 
continues,  explains  that  the  fusion  or  confounding  of 
idea  and  fact,  which  constitutes  the  myth,  could  take 
place  only  so  long  as  the  habit  did  not  exist  of  pre¬ 
senting  the  one  apart  from  the  other — either  idea 
apart  from  narrative,  or  narrative  apart  from  the 
mythopceic  idea.  But  when  ideas  are  apprehended 
as  such,  in  an  abstract  form,,  or  veracious  history  is 

1  See  also  Matt.  ix.  33. 


376 


MYTHICAL  THEORY  OF  STRAUSS. 


written,  the  mythical  era  is  gone.1  So  far  from  there 
being  a  reign  of  credulity,  there  existed,  in  the  Sad- 
ducees,  an  outspoken  skeptical  party  who  regarded 
with  coldness  and  suspicion  the  supernatural  elements 
in  their  own  religion.  How  could  myths  arise  among 
those  who  listened  to  debates  like  that  which  Matthew 
records  between  Christ  and  the  Sadducees,  “  wrho  say 
that  there  is  no  resurrection  ?  ” 2  So  far  from  there 
being  among  the  Jews  in  the  time  of  Christ  an  irre¬ 
sistible  tendency  to  glorify  the  object  of  reverence  by 
attributing  to  him  miraculous  works,  it  is  a  fact,  of 
which  the  advocates  of  the  mythical  theory  can  give  no 
plausible  explanation,  that  no  miracles  are  ascribed  to 
John  the  Baptist,  though  he  was  considered  in  the  early 
Church  to  be  inferior  to  no  prophet  who  had  preceded 
him.  If  there  was  this  unreflecting  and  credulous 
habit  which  is  imputed  to  the  Jewish  Christians,  why 
is  no  instance  of  miraculous  healing  interwoven  in  the 
description  which  the  Gospels  give  us  of  the  career  of 
the  forerunner  of  Jesus  ?  He  was  supernaturally  ena¬ 
bled  to  designate  the  Messiah,  but  he  himself,  though 
he  is  characterized  in  terms  of  exalted  praise,  is  not 
represented  as  endowed  writh  supernatural  power.  It 
is,  also,  significant  that  the  life  of  Jesus^  up  to  the 
time  of  his  entrance  upon  his  public  ministry,  is  left 
an  almost  unbroken  blank.  Had  the  disciples  given 

1  Prolegomena ,  s.  170. 

2  Matt.  xxii.  23  seq.  Julius  Muller  refers  to  this  passage  in  his 
cogent  review  of  Strauss,  in  the  SUidien  u.  Kritiken ,  1836,  III. 


THE  AGE  OF  THE  GOSPELS  NOT  MYTHOPCEIC.  377 


the  reins  to  their  imagination,  as  the  theory  of' Strauss 
supposes,  they  would  almost  infallibly  have  filled  up 
the  childhood  of  Christ  with  myths,  after  the  manner 
of  the  spurious  gospels  of  a  later  date.1  But  Mark 
and  John  pass  over  in  silence  the  whole  of  the  prepara¬ 
tory  period  of  thirty  years.  Matthew  passes  immedi¬ 
ately  from  his  birth  and  infancy  to  his  public  ministry, 
while  Luke  interposes  but  a  single  anecdote  of  his 
childhood.  Why  this  remarkable  reticence,  unless  the 
reason  be  that  the  apostles  chose  to  dwell  upon  that  of 
which  they  had  a  direct,  personal  knowledge  ? 

It  may  be  objected  to  the  foregoing  remarks,  that 
the  original  authors  of  the  mythical  narratives  are  sup¬ 
posed  to  be  persons  aloof  from  the  great  world  and 
beyond  the  influence  of  its  culture — Galileans  of  hum¬ 
ble  rank.  The  existence  of  a  class  of  disciples,  cut  off 
from  the  guidance  of  the  apostles,  has  before  been  dis¬ 
proved.  But  apart  from  this,  the  supposed  authors  of 
the  myths  were  reflective  enough  to  discriminate  between 
the  parable  and  the  abstract  relations  represented  under 
it.  They  were  acquainted  with  the  questions  debated 
between  the  Sadducees  and  their  opponents.  Besides, 
it  is  undeniable  that  a  spirit  of  opposition  to  Christ  and 
his  cause  existed,  and  must  have  existed,  wherever  he 
had  preached.  The  vindictive  hostility  of  the  Pharisees 
and  rulers  caused  his  death.  In  Galilee,  as  well  as 

1  The  Apocryphal  Gospels  were  generally  the  offspring  of  pious 
fraud.  They  were  composed,  for  the  most  part,  to  further  the  cause 
of  some  heretical  doctrine  or  party. 


378 


MYTHICAL  THEORY  OF  STRAUSS. 


Jerusalem,  he  had  to  encounter  unbelief  and  enmity. 
Aside  from  the  fact  that  the  pharisaic  influence  rami¬ 
fied  through  the  land,  it  appears  that  at  Capernaum, 
Chorazin,  Bethsaida,  Nazareth,  there  were  unbelievers 
and  opposers.1  There  was  a  strong  disposition  among 
these  to  disprove  the  messianic  claim  of  Jesus  and  to 
invalidate,  in  some  way,  the  proofs  on  which  it  rested. 
There  could  be  no  disciples  of  Jesus — to  say  the  least, 
no  considerable  number  of  disciples — who  would  not 
be  instantly  called  upon  to  make  good  their  cause  in 
the  encounter  with  objections  and  cavils.  This 
necessity,  if  nothing  else,  would  force  them  to 
reflection,  and  would  thus  break  up  the  attitude  of 
unquestioning  fancy  and  blind  credulity.  They  must 
give  a  reason  for  the  faith  that  is  in  them.  They  must 
do  this  to  the  very  persons  among  whom  the  incidents, 
on  which  their  faith  was  grounded,  were  alleged  to 
have  recently  occurred.  The  mythopceic  faculty  can¬ 
not  work,  it  is  clear,  under  a  cross-examination. 
Taney  cannot  go  on  with  its  creations  in  the  midst 
of  an  atmosphere  of  doubt  and  unfriendly  scrutiny. 
The  state  of  the  Church  was  the  very  opposite  of  that 
repose  on  which  alone  a  mythology  can  have  its  birth. 
It  holds  true  that  the  application  of  the  mythical  theory 
to  the  testimony  of  the  early  disciples,  is  a  gross  ana¬ 
chronism. 

1  It  is  one  theory  of  the  Tiihingen  school  that  the  Pharisees 
followed  Jesus  into  Galilee  and  that  the  hostility  they  felt  to  him 
was  provoked  there. 


DISPROVED  BY  THE  RESURRECTION. 


379 


VI.  The  mythical  theory  is  unable  either  to 
account  for  the  faith  of  the  apostles  in  the  Resurrec¬ 
tion  of  Christ,  or  to  disprove  the  fact  which  was  the 
object  of  this  faith. 

Strauss  finds  it  impossible  to  deny  that  the  apos¬ 
tles,  one  and  all,  believed  that  Jesus  had  risen  from  the 
dead  and  that  they  had  held  various  interviews  and 
conversations  with  him.  This  miracle,  at  least,  it 
must  be  admitted  that  they  received.  Without  this 
faith,  their  continued  adherence  to  the  cause  of  Jesus 
would  hardly  ’be  explainable.  And  this  fact  was  a 
main  part  of  their  preaching  and  testimony.  It 
was  immovably  lodged  in  their  convictions.  More¬ 
over,  the  Apostle  Paul,  in  an  Epistle  whose  genuine¬ 
ness  is  not  disputed,  is  a  witness  to  the  existence  of 
this  belief  and  testimony  on  the  part  of  the  other 
apostles.  He  knew  them  ;  he  had  spent  a  fortnight 
with  Peter  in  his  own  house.  He  had  declared  to  the 
Corinthians,  he  says,  that  Christ  died  “  and  was 
buried,  and  that  he  rose  again  the  third  day,  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  Scriptures ;  and  that  he  was  seen  of 
Cephas,  then  of  the  twelve  :  after  that  he  was  seen 
of  above  five  hundred  brethren  at  once,  of  whom  the 
greater  part  remain  to  this  present,  but  some  are 
fallen  asleep  ;  after  that  he  was  seen  of  James  ;  then 
of  all  the  apostles.”  The  whole  manner  of  Paul  indi¬ 
cates  that  he  is  giving  the  result  of  a  careful  inquiry. 
That  the  apostles  believed ,  with  a  faith  which  no  oppo¬ 
sition  could  shake,  that  they  had  thus  beheld  the  risen 


380  MYTHICAL  THEORY  OE  STRAUSS. 

Jesus,  there  is,  therefore,  no  room  for  doubt.  The 
main  question  is,  how  came  they  to  this  persuasion  ? 
The  Gospel  narratives  furnish  the  explanation  bv  de¬ 
scribing  his  actual  reappearance,  and  repeated  confer¬ 
ences  with  them.  Rejecting  the  miracle,  Strauss 
is  obliged  to  undertake  the  task,  by  no  means  a  light 
one,  of  accounting  for  their  unanimous  belief  in  it ;  for 
the  belief,  also,  of  the  assembly  of  more  than  five 
hundred  disciples  to  whose  testimony  Paul  refers. 

The  principal  points  in  Strauss’s  attempted  expla¬ 
nation  are  the  following  : 1  Christ  had  more  and  more 
impressed  the  disciples  with  the  conviction  that  he  was 
the  Messiah.  His  death,  so  contrary  to  their  previous 
conceptions  of  what  the  Messiah’s  career  would  be, 
for  the  time  extinguished  this  conviction.  But  after 
the  first  shock  was  over,  their  previous  impression 
concerning  Christ  revived.  Hence  the  psychological 
necessity  of  incorporating  into  their  notion  of  the 
Messiah  the  idea  that  he  was  to  suffer  and  die.  But 
as  comprehending  a  thing,  among  the  Jews  of  that 
time,  only  signified  the  deriving  of  it  from  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  the  apostles  resorted  to  these  to  see  whether 
there  might  not  be  in  them  intimations  that  the  Mes¬ 
siah  was  to  suffer  and  die.  This  idea,  Strauss  affirms, 
was  foreign  to  the  Old  Testament ;  nevertheless,  the 
apostles  would  find  the  intimations,  which  they  wished 
to  find,  in  all  the  poetic  and  prophetic  passages  of  the 
Old  Testament,  as  Isaiah  liii.,  Psalm  xxii.,  in  which 


1  Leben  Jem ,  s.  636  seq. 


THE  THEORY  OF  STRAUSS  STATED. 


381 


the  men  of  God  were  represented  as  persecuted  even 
to  death.  This  obstacle  surmounted,  and  having  now 
a  suffering,  dying  Messiah,  it  followed  next  that  Christ 
was  not  lost,  but  still  remained  to  them  :  through 
death,  he  had  only  entered  into  his  messianic  glory,  in 
which  he  was  invisibly  with  them,  always,  even  to  the 
end  of  the  world.  Having  advanced  so  far,  they 
would  be  moved  to  ask  themselves  how  it  was  possible 
that  he  should  refrain  from  personally  communicating 
with  them  ?  And  how  could  they,  in  the  warmth  of 
feeling  kindled  by  this  unveiling  to  them  of  the 
Scriptural  doctrine  of  a  suffering  and  dying  Messiah, 
avoid  regarding  this  new  discovery  as  the  effect  of  an 
influence  exerted  upon  them  by  the  glorified  Christ, 
“  an  opening  of  their  understandings  ”  by  Him — 
“yea”  adds  Strauss,  “  as  a  discoursing  with  them?” 
These  feelings,  in  the  case  of  individuals,  especially 
women,  rose  into  an  actual  (apparent)  vision.  In  the 
case  of  others,  even  of  whole  assemblies,  something 
objective,  visible,  or  audible,  perchance  the  sight  of  an 
unknown  person,  made  the  impression  of  a  revelation 
or  manifestation  of  Jesus.  But  another  step  in  the 
psychological  process  was  yet  to  be  taken.  If  the 
crucified  Messiah  had  really  ascended  to  the  highest 
state  of  blessed  existence,  then  his  body  could  not 
have  been  left  in  the  grave  ;  and  since  there  were  Old 
Testament  expressions,  like  Psalm  xvi.  10,  “  thou  shalt 
not  leave  my  soul  in  Hades,  neither  suffer  thy  Holy 
One  to  see  corruption/’  and  Isaiah  liii.  10,  in  which 


382 


MYTHICAL  THEORY  OF  STRAUSS. 


the  slain  servant  of  Jehovah  was  promised  a  long  life 
afterwards,  the  disciples  could  keep  their  previous 
notion  that  “  Christ  abideth  forever  ”  (John  xii.  34), 
by  means  of  the  thought  of  an  actual  reawakening  of 
the  crucified ;  and,  inasmuch  as  it  was  a  messianic 
function  to  raise  at  a  future  day  the  bodies  of  the 
dead,  the  return  of  Jesus  to  life  must  be  an  actual 
anastasis — a  resurrection  of  the  body. 

What  shall  be  said  of  this  chain  of  conjectures? 
We  freely  admit  that  all  which  Strauss  asserts  on  this 
subject  is  possible .  That  the  followers  of  Christ  came 
to  believe  in  his  resurrection  in  the  way  above 
described,  without  the  objective  fact  to  excite  this 
belief,  is  not  absolutely  beyond  the  bounds  of  possi¬ 
bility.  It  is  not  pretended  that  the  fact  of  the  miracle 
is  susceptible  of  strict  demonstration.  Nay,  we  con¬ 
cede  that  if  a  man  holds  a  miracle,  under  the  circum¬ 
stances,  in  connection  with  the  establishment  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  in  this  world,  to  be  more  improbable  than  any 
method,  which  is  not  literally  irrational,  of  explaining 
it  away,  he  may  accept  the  above  solution  of  Strauss 
But  even  he  cannot  shut  his  eyes  to  the  tremendous 
difficulties  which  attend  that  solution.  In  order  to 
set  forth  some  of  these  difficulties,  we  must  restate 
the  hypothesis  of  Strauss,  adding  other  particulars  in 
his  view,  some  of  which  have  not  been  mentioned.  A 
young  man — such  is  the  theory  of  Strauss — comes  to 
the  baptism  of  John  with  the  same  motive  which  led 
others  to  the  prophet,  and  takes  his  place  among  his 


THE  THEORY  OF  STRAUSS  STATED. 


383 


disciples.  After  John  is  thrown  into  prison,  he  begins 
himself  to  teach.  He  draws  about  him  a  band  of 
disciples.  Gradually  he  comes  to  believe  himself  not 
merely  a  prophet,  but  even  the  expected  Messiah. 
But  at  first,  though  inculcating  spiritual  truth,  he 
shares  in  the  political  theory  of  the  Messiah’s  kingdom 
until  the  unfavorable  reception  accorded  to  him  and 
his  doctrine  modified  the  view  he  took  of  the  charac¬ 
ter  and  prospects  of  that  kingdom.  He  may,  not 
unlikely,  have  anticipated  that  the  opposition  excited 
against  him  would,  at  no  very  distant  day,  result  in 
his  death.  But  when  seized  by  the  Jewish  rulers,  he 
was  not  looking  for  an  immediate  death.  This  is  a 
point  which  Strauss  is  obliged  to  maintain  in  order  to 
avoid  conceding  to  Christ  supernatural  knowledge. 
On  a  sudden  he  is  seized  in  the  midst  of  his  follow¬ 
ers,  and  executed  as  a  culprit.  All  their  expectations 
had  been  disappointed.  They  had  expected  the  Mes¬ 
siah  to  work  miracles  ;  but  they  had  witnessed  none. 
They  had  looked  for  a  political  Prince,  and  been 
encouraged  in  their  view,  for  a  time,  by  Jesus  himself ; 
but  behold  their  imaginary  Prince  nailed  to  the  cross  ! 
He  is  solemnly  adjudged  to  death  by  the  rulers  of  the 
nation,  by  those  who  sat  in  Moses’  seat !  And  the 
civil  power  of  the  Romans  carries  out  the  sentence  1 
He  dies,  receiving  no  succor  from  God,  apparently 
incapable  of  offering  resistance  !  Add  to  this  that 
they,  as  was  natural,  dispersed  in  terror.  Can  we, 
adopting  Strauss’s  interpretation  of  the  previous 


384 


MYTHICAL  THEORY  OF  STRAUSS. 


history  of  Jesus,  think  that  the  souls  of  the  disciples 
were  enthralled  to  that  degree  that  they  still  clung  to 
their  faith  in  him  ?  If  Strauss  were  willing  to  admit 
that  Jesus  had  before  exhibited  supernatural  powers 
and  had  performed  the  miracles  recorded  of  him  in  the 
Gospels,  it  would  be  less  difficult  to  account  for  a 
mistaken  belief  of  his  disciples  in  his  resurrection  ; 
but  in  that  case,  the  motive  for  discrediting  the  reality 
of  the  miracle  would  no  longer  exist.  But  the  theory 
of  Strauss  respecting  the  previous  life  of  Christ  disables 
him  from  explaining  how  a  myth  of  this  portentous 
character  could  spring  up  and  obtain  universal  cre¬ 
dence  among  his  disciples.  There  was  nothing  in  the 
Master’s  career  to  prepare  their  minds  to  believe,  much 
less  anything  to  predispose  their  minds  to  originate, 
such  a  report.  And  then  the  idea  of  all  of  them,  with 
none  to  dissent,  reviving  from  their  terror  and  despon¬ 
dency  ;  changing  essentially  their  notion  of  the  Mes¬ 
siah  to  suit  the  circumstances  ;  attributing  their  new 
interpretations  of  the  Old  Testament  to  an  inspiration 
from  Christ ;  conceiving  themselves,  on  this  account, 
to  be  holding  personal  intercourse  with  him,  then  pro¬ 
ceeding  to  the  further  inference  that  his  body  had 
been  awakened  to  life  !  Add  to  this  that  on  the 
strength  of  this  faith,  the  offspring  of  a  series  of  the 
veriest  delusions,  they  went  forth  proclaiming  the 
resurrection  of  Jesus,  and  this  with  a  courage  they 
had  never  before  manifested  or  felt — went  forth — 
these  illiterate  visionaries — to  the  spiritual  conquest 


THE  THEORY  OE  STRAUSS  EXAMINED. 


385 


of  the  world  !  Notwithstanding  the  inventions  of 
Strauss  to  account  for  it,  the  revolution  in  the  feelings 
of  the  apostles  so  soon  after  they  had  “  mourned  and 
wept,”  having  thought  that  the  kingdom  would  be 
restored  to  Israel,  and  hid  themselves  out  of  “  fear  of 
the  Jews,”  remains,  unless  we  suppose  a  great  objec¬ 
tive  transaction  to  produce  the  change,  an  unexplained 
marvel.  For  in  their  deep  dejection  of  mind,  there 
was  nothing  that  could  awaken  a  vision  such  as 
Strauss  imagines.  Misery  does  not  beget  enthusiasm. 

But  if  we  admit  for  the  moment  that  his  conjec¬ 
tures  on  this  point  are  well  founded,  he  is  immediately 
confronted  by  another  difficulty,  to  surmount  which  he 
is  obliged  to  set  at  defiance  the  testimony  in  the  case. 
The  most  of  the  interviews  with  the  risen  Christ, 
which  Strauss  calls  visions,  took  place  in  Jerusalem. 
There  they  met  him — first,  individuals,  and  then  the 
eleven  together,  on  the  day  but  one  after  he  had  been 
laid  in  the  tomb.  They  had  the  means  of  testing 
whether  his  body  was,  or  was  not,  still  in  the  embrace 
of  death.  They  would  certainly  have  made  inquiry. 
They  would  certainly  have  gone  to  the  tomb.  Sen¬ 
sible  of  this  difficulty,  Strauss  takes  it  upon  him  to 
transfer  the  scene  of  these  interviews  to  Galilee.  In 
Matthew,  where  the  account  bears  all  the  marks  of 
being  an  abbreviated  summary,  Jesus  appears  to 
“  Mary  Magdalene  and  the  other  Mary  ”  on  the  first 
Sunday,  and  the  disciples  are  directed  to  go  into  Gali¬ 
lee  to  meet  him  there.  There  Strauss  places  the  scene 
25 


386 


MYTHICAL  THEORY  OF  STRAUSS. 


of  the  supposed  visions.1  But  in  taking  this  view  he 
is  obliged  to  contradict  the  more  full  narratives  of  the 
other  evangelists,  including  John.  They  are  con¬ 
firmed,  in  this  particular,  by  the  unquestioned  testi¬ 
mony  of  Paul.  Por  he  states  that  the  reappearance 
of  Christ  was  on  the  third  day  after  his  burial.  The 
commemoration  of  Sunday  in  the  apostolic  age,  of 
which  the  New  Testament  affords  convincing  evidence, 
proves  the  same  thing.  There  is  no  plausible  explana¬ 
tion  of  the  constant  affirmation  of  the  disciples  that  the 
resurrection  occurred  on  the  third  day,  unless  we  sup¬ 
pose  that  Jerusalem  was  the  place  of  his  reappearance 
to  them.  The  next  declaration  of  Paul,  that  “  He  was 
seen  of  Cephas,”  falls  in  with  the  statement  incident¬ 
ally  made  by  Luke  (Luke  xxiv.  34),  of  the  appearance 
of  Christ  “  to  Simon  ”  on  the  Sunday  of  the  resurrec¬ 
tion  ;  and  it  is  natural  to  identify  the  interview  with 
the  twelve,  which  Paul  mentions  immediatelv  after  in 
the  same  verse,  with  the  interview  mentioned  by  Luke 
as  taking  place  in  the  latter  part  of  the  same  day  (ver. 
36).  So  that  the  denial  by  Strauss  that  these  inter¬ 
views,  whether  real  or  imaginary,  took  place  in  Jerusa¬ 
lem  and  soon  after  the  burial  of  Christ,  is  in  the  teeth 
of  unimpeachable  testimony.2 

1  Strauss  throws  aside,  however,  Matthew’s  account  of  the  inter¬ 
view  of  Jesus  with  the  two  Marys.  It  is  one  of  a  multitude  of 
instances  in  which  Strauss  follows  an  evangelist  just  so  far  as,  and 
no  farther  than,  it  suits  his  convenience. 

2  Baur,  the  Prince  of  the  Tubingen  critics,  appears  to  give  up  the 
Straussian  notion  that  the  disciples  forsook  Jerusalem.  “  It  proves,” 


THE  THEORY  OE  STRAUSS  EXAMINED.  387 

But  to  remove  the  theatre  of  the  so-called  visions 
to  Galilee  does  not  suffice.  It  will  not  do  to  allow 
that  the  apostles  began  so  soon  to  believe  and  to  preach 
their  dream  as  a  reality  for  which  they  were  ready  to 
lay  down  their  lives.  Bor  this  inward  change,  time 
was  required.  There  must  be,  in  their  Galilean  seclu¬ 
sion,  a  silent  preparation — a  stille  Vorbereitung.  To 
secure  this  advantage  for  his  theory,  Strauss  does  not 
hesitate  to  contradict  the  statement  of  Luke,  in  the 
Acts,  that  within  a  few  weeks  from  the  Master’s  death, 
on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  they  preached  with  great 
power  and  proclaimed  his  Resurrection.1  Observe 
that  the  author  of  the  Acts  is  not  credited  with  a 
myth,  but  is  charged  with  conscious  deception. 

But  all  this  violent  criticism  is  really  insufficient, 
because,  apart  from  the  testimony  of  the  evangelists, 
the  testimony  of  Paul  makes  it  evident  that  it  was  not 
visions,  but  interviews  and  conferences,  which  the 
apostles  had  with  the  risen  Christ.  Strauss,  indeed, 
tries  to  show  that  Paul’s  own  sight  of  Jesus  was  only 

he  says,  “  the  great  strength  of  their  faith  and  a  greatly  strengthened 
confidence  in  the  cause  of  Christ,  that  the  disciples  immediately  after 
his  death  neither  scattered  outside  of  Jerusalem ,  nor  assembled  in  a 
remoter  place ,  but  in  Jerusalem  itself  had  their  permanent  centre.” 
See  Das  Ghristenthum ,  etc.  s.  41.  He  gives  up  the  attempt  “  to 
penetrate  by  psychological  analysis  into  the  inward  spiritual  forces,” 
by  which  the  unbelief  of  the  apostles  at  the  death  of  Christ  was 
supplanted  by  the  faith  in  his  resurrection :  s.  40.  In  this  particu*-^ 
lar,  then,  Baur  seems  to  repudiate  the  long-drawn  hypothesis  of 
Strauss. 

Leben  Jesu ,  B.  II.  s.  639. 


i 


388 


MYTHICAL  THEORY  OF  STRAUSS. 


a  vision,  or  a  seeming  vision,  and  then  leaps  to  the 
inference  that  the  other  interviews  of  the  disciples  with 
Christ,  after  his  death,  were  of  a  like  nature.  But 
Paul  evidently  regarded  the  appearance  of  Christ  to 
him  at  his  conversion,  to  which  he  here  refers,  as  an 
objective,  visible,  actual  manifestation.  This  late 
manifestation  of  the  ascended  Christ,  he  connects  with 
the  appearances  of  Christ  to  the  other  apostles  before 
his  ascension.  There  is  no  warrant,  therefore,  either 
for  the  assertion  that  Paul,  in  his  own  case,  was  refer¬ 
ring  to  a  vision,  or,  even  if  he  were,  that  the  manifesta¬ 
tions  of  Christ  to  the  other  disciples  were  of  this  kind. 
If  it  were  admitted  that  Paul’s  sight  of  Jesus  was  an 
illusive  impression,  a  seeming  vision,  as  Strauss  pre¬ 
tends,  yet  that  implies  psychologically  a  state  of  feeling 
on  his  part,  whether  it  were  incredulity  or  incipient 
faith,  which  nothing  but  the  proclamation  of  the  resur¬ 
rection  of  Jesus  by  the  apostles  could  have  produced. 
And  their  supposed  visions,  at  least,  no  prior  fact  of 
this  kind  can  help  explain.  But  this  theory  of  visions 
is  excluded  by  the  fact  that  he  was  seen,  as  Paul 
declares,  more  than  once  by  the  whole  company  of  the 
apostles  simultaneously,  and  still  more  by  the  fact  of 
his  appearance  to  an  assembly  of  more  than  five  hun¬ 
dred  disciples  at  once.  The  simultaneous  imaginary 
vision  of  Christ  by  so  large  a  number  would  be  unac- 
countable.  The  nature  of  those  meetings  of  the  disci¬ 
ples  with  Christ,  which  Paul  records  with  so  profound 
a  sense  of  the  vital  importance  of  them,  feeling  that 


DISPROVED  BY  THE  BOOK  OF  ACTS. 


389 


“  if  Christ  be  not  risen,  our  faith  is  vain,”  is  set  forth 
in  the  more  circumstantial  narratives  of  the  evangelists. 
It  was  fact,  not  fancy,  on  which  the  preaching  and  the 
unconquerable  faith  of  the  apostles  were  founded. 

VII.  The  mythical  theory  is  inconsistent  with  the 
book  of  Acts. 

We  liave  just  alluded  to  one  point  in  this  testi¬ 
mony.  The  book  of  Acts  is  the  continuation  of  the 
third  Gospel  by  the  same  author.  It  was  written  for 
the  benefit  of  the  same  Theophilus  to  whom  the  Gos¬ 
pel  was  addressed  (Acts  i.  1).  It  is  a  work  of  a  person 
who  was  the  beloved  companion  of  the  Apostle  Paul 
during  a  part  of  his  missionary  journeying.1  The 
testimony  of  the  Acts  is  of  the  highest  value  and  im¬ 
portance.  We  here  see  the  apostles,  a  few  weeks  after 
the  death  of  Christ,  proclaiming  in  Jerusalem  his 
resurrection.  We  find  them  referring  in  their  dis¬ 
courses  to  “  the  miracles,  and  wonders,  and  signs,” 
which  Christ  had  performed  “  in  the  midst  ”  of  the 
people  to  whom  they  spoke  (Acts  ii.  22).  We  find 
that  the  apostles  themselves  were  endowed  with  power 
to  work  miracles.2  The  Acts  prove,  thus,  that  the 
earlier  miracles  of  Christ  were  believed  and  preached 
by  the  apostles.  They  furnish  the  most  decisive  proof 
of  the  supernatural  events  connected  with  the  founding 
of  Christianity. 

1  Col.  iv.  14;  Acts.  xvi.  10-17,  xx.  5-15,  xxi.  1-18,  xxxii.  1  seq. 

5  Besides  passages  in  tlie  Acts,  see  on  this  point  Rom.  xv.  19; 
2  Cor.  xii.  12  ;  Hebrews  ii.  4. 


390 


MYTHICAL  THEORY  OF  STRAUSS. 


Strauss,  in  liis  Life  of  Christ,  prudently  abstained 
from  considering  at  any  length  the  testimony  of  the 
Acts.  Other  adherents  of  the  Tubingen  school, 
especially  Baur  and  Zeller,  have  endeavored  to  supply 
this  deficiency.  But  the  mythical  theory  proves 
insufficient.  It  is  found  necessary  to  charge  the 
author  of  the  Acts  with  intentional  fraud  and  false¬ 
hood.  In  defiance  of  the  explicit,  as  well  as  iifcidental, 
evidence  afforded  by  the  Gospel,  both  works  are  re¬ 
manded  to  the  early  part  of  the  second  century,  while 
the  passages  in  the  Acts  in  which  the  “  we  ”  occurs, 
are  declared  to  have  been  thus  left  for  the  purpose  of 
deceiving  readers  into  the  belief  that  the  date  of  its 
composition  was  earlier.  So  the  old  infidelity  is 
brought  back  again.  Candid  men  will  sooner  put 
faith  in  the  direct  statements,  made  by  the  author  of 
the  third  Gospel  and  of  the  Acts  respecting  himself, 
fully  corroborated  as  they  are  by  internal  evidence  of 
an  incidental  nature  which  could  not  have  been  man¬ 
ufactured,  and  confirmed,  too,  by  the  authority  of  the 
early  Church,  than  accept  the  theory  that  we  owe 
these  precious  histories  of  Christ  and  the  apostles  to 
a  cheat. 

VIII.  The  mythical  theory  is  proved  untenable  by 
the  fact  that  the  supernatural  elements  in  the  life  of 
Christ,  are  inseparably  connected  with  circumstances 
and  sayings  which  are  plainly  historical. 

The  advocates  of  the  mythical  theory  undertake  to 


THE  SUPERNATURAL  BLENDED  WITH  THE  NATURAL.  391 


dissect  the  Gospel  histories,  and  to  cast  out  everything 
supernatural.  Out  of  the  residuum  they  will  construct 
the  veritable  life  of  Christ.  Now  if  it  be  true  that 
the  natural  and  the  supernatural,  the  historical  and 
the  (so-called)  fabulous,  are  incapable  of  this  divorce, 
but  that  both  are  parts  of  each  other,  so  that  if  one  be 
destroyed  the  other  vanishes  also,  then  the  miracles 
must  be  allowed  to  stand.  And  such  is  the  fact. 
These  narratives  will  not  suffer  the  decomposition  that 
is  attempted  upon  them.  The  two  elements,  the 
natural  and  the  miraculous,  will  not  admit  of  being 
thus  torn  apart.  We  have  space  for  only  a  few  proofs 
and  illustrations  of  our  proposition ;  but  these,  it  is 
hoped,  are  sufficient  to  show  its  truth.  The  first 
illustration  we  have  to  offer  is  the  message  of  John  the 
Baptist  from  his  prison,  to  inquire  of  Jesus,  “  Art  thou 
he  that  should  come,  or  do  we  look  for  another  ?  ”  1 
The  two  disciples  of  John  witnessed  the  various  mira¬ 
cles  of  healing  performed  by  Christ.  Jesus  then  said 
to  them :  “  Go  and  shew  John  again  these  things 
which  ye  do  hear  and  see  :  the  blind  receive  their  sight, 
and  the  lame  walk,  the  lepers  are  cleansed,  and  the 
deaf  hear,  the  dead  are  raised  up,  and  the  poor  have 
the  gospel  preached  to  them :  and  blessed  is  he  who¬ 
soever  shall  not  be  offended  in  me.”  The  messengers 
departed ;  and  Jesus  proceeds  to  speak,  with  earnest 
emotion,  to  the  people  who  are  present,  of  the  sacred 
character  and  the  position  of  John.  Now  it  is  obvious 

1  Matt.  xi.  2  seq. ;  Luke  vii.  18  seq. 


392 


MYTHICAL  THEORY  OF  STRAUSS. 


that  if  one  part  of  this  narrative  is  given  up,  the  rest 
falls  with  it.  There  is  no  way  of  escaping  the  mira¬ 
culous,  as  the  procedure  of  Strauss  evinces,  except  by 
denying  the  whole — denying  that  John  sent  the  mes¬ 
sage.  But  how  irrational  to  suppose  that  the  disciples 
of  Christ  would  have  falsely  attributed  to  John  the 
doubt  as  to  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus,  which  occasioned 
the  message.1  Had  Strauss  no  theory  to  maintain,  he 
would  be  the  last  to  assume  a  thing  so  improbable. 
We  have,  then,  an  example  in  which  the  miracles  are  an 
indissoluble  part  of  a  transaction  undeniably  historical. 

We  proceed  to  another  illustration.  The  evangel¬ 
ists  record  four  instances  of  the  miraculous  healing  of 
aggravated  diseases  on  the  Sabbath,  each  of  which  led 
to  a  conversation,  inseparable  from  the  incident  that 
provoked  it,  and  yet  manifestly  historical.2  Let  us 
briefly  notice  one  of  these  instances — that  of  the  man 
healed  of  the  dropsy.  On  this  occasion,  in  reference 
to  the  lawfulness  of  healing  on  the  Sabbath-day,  Christ 
put  to  the  lawyers  and  Pharisees  the  question : 
“  Which  of  you  shall  have  an  ass  or  an  ox  fallen  into 

1  That  such  was  the  motive  of  the  message  seems  clear.  See 
Meyer  on  Matthew,  s.  244.  The  momentary  uncertainty  of  John 
may  have  been  owing  to  the  circumstance  that  Jesus  remained  in 
retiracy  and  gave  no  signs  of  inaugurating  any  political  change,  from 
the  expectation  of  which  John  was,  perhaps,  not  wholly  free. 

2  1.  The  case  of  the  man  with  a  withered  hand,  Matt.  xii.  9  seq. 
(Luke  vi.  6  seq. ;  Mark  iii.  1  seq.).  2.  The  man  afflicted  with  dropsy, 
Luke  xiv.  5  seq.  3.  The  woman  bowed  down  with  a  chronic 
infirmity,  Luke  xiii.  10  seq.  4.  The  lame  man  at  the  pool  of 
Bethesda,  John  v.  2  seq. 


THE  SUPERNATURAL  BLENDED  WITH  THE  NATURAL.  393 

a  pit,  and  will  not  straightway  pull  him  out  on  the 
Sabbath-day  ?  ”  Strauss  cannot  bring  himself  to  deny 
that  Jesus  proposed  this  question.  The  expression, 
both  in  doctrine  and  in  form,  is  too  characteristic  of 
his  method  of  teaching.  Nor  can  he  avoid  admitting 
that  it  was  spoken  in  connection  with  some  act  of 
Jesus  in  ministering  to  the  diseased.  He  even  con¬ 
cedes  that  the  inquiry  would  be  inappropriate  unless 
the  case  were  that  of  a  person  rescued  from  a  great 
peril.  After  making  various  suggestions  which  fail  to 
satisfy  himself,  Strauss  is  at  length  inclined  to  fall 
back  upon  the  (so-called)  natural  exposition,  which  he 
is  wont  to  handle,  in  general,  so  unmercifully.1  If 
Jesus  ministered  among  his  disciples  to  bodily  as  well 
as  spiritual  infirmities,  and  had  been  giving  remedies 
on  the  Sabbath,  the  question  may  have  been  put  by 
way  of  self-defence.  After  following  Strauss  in  the 
perpetual  attack  he  makes,  with  logic  and  satire,  upon 
the  interpretations  of  Paulus,  which,  to  be  sure,  are 
equally  destitute  of  reason  and  taste,  one  cannot  help 
being  struck  with  surprise  to  find  him  resorting,  in 
order  to  avoid  the  miracle,  to  one  of  that  critic’s 
favorite  notions.  Nothing  could  more  clearly  indicate 
the  stress  of  the  difficulty  which  is  created  by  the 
evident  verity  of  the  New  Testament  report. 

The  evangelists  state  that  on  numerous  occasions, 
after  working  a  miracle,  Jesus  directed  that  the  fact 
should  not  be  noised  abroad.  Not  only  would  he  be 

Leben  Jesu ,  B.  II.  s.  118,  119. 


394 


MYTHICAL  THEORY  OF  STRAUSS. 


concerned  to  avoid  a  premature  conflict  with  the 
Jewish  rulers,  which  might  cut  him  off  before  his 
work  was  finished,  but  the  prohibition  was  with 
reference  to  the  eagerness  of  the  people  for  a  political 
Messiah,  and  in  order  that  the  number  of  his  disciples 
might  not  be  swelled  by  a  multitude  on  whom  no  deep 
spiritual  impression  had  been  made ;  who  would, 
therefore,  abandon  their  faith  as  soon  as  their  carnal 
expectation  should  be  balked.  In  some  instances,  the 
evangelists  inform  us,  the  injunction  of  Christ  on 
this  point  was  not  complied  with.  That  Christ  should 
utter  these  prohibitions,  was  in  itself  a  remarkable 
circumstance.  It  must  fix  itself,  and  did  fix  itself,  in 
the  recollection  of  his  disciples.  But  if  the  miracles 
are  dropped,  what  becomes  of  the  prohibition  to  report 
them  ?  Strauss’s  talent  for  conjecture  is  here  put  to  a 
severe  test.  He  concludes  that  Christ,  after  he  began 
his  public  ministry,  at  first  regarding  himself  as  only  a 
forerunner  like  John,  and  only  by  degrees  indulging 
the  idea  that  he  is  himself  the  Messiah,  was,  so  to 
speak,  struck  with  fear  at  hearing  that  distinctly  sug¬ 
gested  from  without  which  he  hardly,  in  his  own 
bosom,  dared  to  conjecture,  or  had  only  shortly  before 
come  to  believe  !  That  is,  in  homelier  phrase,  Christ 
wished  nothing  to  be  said  on  the  subject  till  he  had 
made  up  his  own  mind  !  We  need  offer  no  comment 
on  this  theory,  save  to  remind  the  reader  that  it  does 
not  touch  the  proof  that  this  injunction  most  frequent¬ 
ly  had  reference  to  miracles. 


THE  SUPERNATURAL  BLENDED  WITH  THE  NATURAL.  395 


Still  another  example  of  the  truth  that  the  natural 
and  the  supernatural  are  hound  up  together  in  the 
Gospel  history,  is  afforded  by  the  narrative  of  the 
Saviour’s  agony  in  Gethsemane.  This  disclosure  of 
the  sinking  of  his  heart  in  the  near  prospect  of  death, 
and  of  the  struggle  through  which  he  passed,  is  felt 
by  the  reader  to  be  historical.  Least  of  all  would 
Strauss  be  expected  to  impeach  the  verity  of  it.  His 
axiom  is  that  the  disciples  were  swayed  by  a  desire  to 
glorify  their  master.  He  strangely  attributes  the 
circumstance  that  the  disciples  are  said  to  have  fallen 
asleep,  even  here  in  the  garden,  and  on  the  Mount  of 
Transfiguration,  while  Christ  was  awake,  to  a  secret 
desire  to  ascribe  to  him  a  certain  superiority.  How, 
then,  could  they  have  been  prompted  to  falsely  repre¬ 
sent  him  in  a  state  of  feeling,  which,  in  the  judgment 
of  the  world,  however  superficial  that  judgment  may 
be,  is  less  noble  and  worthy  than  the  placid  manner 
of  a  Socrates  ?  And  yet  Strauss,  after  long  criticisms 
of  the  several  Gospel  narratives,  pronounces  the  whole 
story  of  the  agony  of  Jesus  in  the  garden  unhistori- 
cal ! 1  He  has,  moreover,  a  reason  for  this  judgment. 
This  agitation,  whatever  causes  produced  it,  was  con¬ 
ditioned  by  the  knowledge  that  death  was  at  hand. 
Now,  as  the  plot  was  a  secret  one,  to  admit  that  Jesus 
was  possessed  of  this  knowledge  would  be  tantamount 

1  - “jener  ganze  Seelenkampf,  weil  auf  unerweislicken  Vor- 

aussetsungen  ruhend,  aufgegeben  werden  muss.”  Leben  Jesu ,  B.  II. 

e.  454. 


396 


MYTHICAL  THEORY  OF  STRAUSS. 


to  the  acknowledgment  of  his  supernatural  foresight. 
Strauss  makes  a  laborious  endeavor  to  show  that  none 
of  the  words  of  Jesus  in  the  record  of  the  institution 
of  the  Supper,  imply  an  expectation  of  an  immediate 
death.  Thus,  to  avoid  the  supernatural,  he  strikes 
out  of  the  history  of  Christ  a  passage  which  bears  the 
most  unmistakable  stamp  of  being  historical,  and 
which  his  own  fundamental  postulate  forbids  him  to 
reject ! 

Other  proofs  of  a  more  than  human  knowledge  on 
the  part  of  Christ,  are  left  upon  the  Gospel  page. 
Christ  predicted  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  the 
overthrow  of  the  Jewish  state,  and  the  forfeiture  of  its 
rank  and  privilege,  as  the  seat  of  the  worship  of 
Jehovah.  When  the  city  stood  in  all  its  strength  and 
splendor,  he  set  the  date  of  its  downfall  within  the 
lifetime  of  the  generation  then  on  the  stage.  He  fore¬ 
told,  what  is  even  more  impressive  to  a  thoughtful 
mind,  the  progress  of  the  Christian  cause  to  a  universal 
triumph.  In  the  parables  of  the  mustard-seed  and  the 
leaven,  he  depicted  the  small  beginnings  and  the 
future  extent  and  power  of  the  Christian  religion. 
What  a  gaze  was  that  which  thus  looked  far  down  the 
stream  of  time  !  The  unaided  faculties  of  no  man,  in 
the  situation  of  Jesus,  could  have  thus  forecast  the 
drama  of  history. 

IX.  The  arbitrary  and  sophistical  character  of  the 
criticism  applied  to  the  contents  of  the  Gospels  in 


SOPHISTRY  OP  STRAUSS. 


397 


order  to  prove  them  untrustworthy,  is  conclusive 
against  the  mythical  theory. 

The  method  of  Strauss,  as  we  have  indicated 
before,  is  to  overthrow  the  credibility  of  the  Gospels, 
to  the  end  that  he  may  disprove  their  genuineness. 
He  wishes,  by  an  analysis  of  the  testimony,  to  show 
that  it  cannot  emanate  from  eyewitnesses  or  qualified 
contemporaries.  Hence,  the  greater  part  of  his  book 
is  taken  up  with  the  detailed  examination  of  the  Gos¬ 
pels,  his  aim  being  to  show  them  to  be  destitute  of 
historical  authority.  Strauss  has  forgotten  the  admo¬ 
nition  of  his  countryman,  Lessing  :  “if  Livy,  and 
Dionysius,  and  Polybius,  and  Tacitus,  are  so  candidly 
and  liberally  treated  that  we  do  not  stretch  them  upon 
the  rack  for  a  syllable,  why  should  not  Matthew,  and 
Mark,  and  Luke,  and  John  be  treated  as  well  ?  ”  We 
characterize  his  criticism  as  generally  unfair  and 
sophistical.  Llis  manner  is  precisely  that  of  a  sharp 
advocate  who  sets  himself  to  pick  to  pieces  the  testi¬ 
mony  of  a  company  of  artless,  but  honest  and  compe¬ 
tent  witnesses.  Variations  are  magnified  and  harped 
upon ;  whatever  is  stated  by  one  and  omitted  by 
another  is  laid  to  some  occult  motive  either  in  the  one 
or  the  other,  or  in  both  ;  meanings  are  read  into  the 
record  which  never  occurred  to  those  who  gave  it ;  and 
by  other  arts  familiar  to  the  advocate  the  impression 
is  sought  to  be  produced  that  the  testimony  is  entitled 
to  no  credit.  To  fan  suspicion  is  the  prime  object  of 
Strauss.  His  method  would  destroy  the  credibility 


398 


MYTHICAL  THEORY  OF  STRAUSS. 


of  all  history.  A  parody,  where  the  subject  is  an 
established,  notorious  historical  fact,  is  the  most 
effective  method  of  refuting  this  criticism  which  rests 
on  suspicion.  If  Whately’s  Life  of  Napoleon  is  not  a 
valid  refutation  of  Hume,  inasmuch  as  no  natural  fact, 
however  unexampled,  can  be  put  in  the  same  category 
with  a  supernatural  fact,  this  little  work,  nevertheless, 
well  illustrates  with  what  facility  doubt  may  be  cast 
upon  sound  and  credible  testimony.  A  clever  parody 
upon  Strauss  was  written  in  Germany,  in  the  form 
of  a  Life  of  Luther.1  The  fact  of  “  two  birthplaces,” 
for  example,  Bethlehem  and  Nazareth,  which,  at  the 
outset,  calls  out  the  skepticism  of  Strauss,  is  put  by 
the  side  of  circumstances  equally  surprising  in  the  case 
of  Luther,  whose  parents,  before  he  was  born,  had 
come  from  Mohra  to  Eisleben,  and  shortly  after  that 
event  moved  to  Mansfeld.  An  able  writer2  has  finely 
parodied  the  reasoning  of  Strauss  through  which  he 
aims  to  impeach  the  credit  of  the  evangelists,  by  try¬ 
ing  the  same  method  upon  the  ancient  testimonies 
describing  the  assassination  of  Julius  Caesar.  And  he 
proves  that  Caesar  was  never  killed,  by  the  same 
species  of  argument  which  Strauss  employs  to  disprove 
the  healing  of  the  Centurion’s  son,  or  the  transfigura- 

1  The  title  is  as  folio ws  :  “  The  Life  of  Luther,  critically  treated 
by  Dr.  Casual*  Mexico,  2836.”  (Tubingen:  1839.  The  work  was 
written  by  Wurm).  A  learned  doctor,  a  thousand  years  hence,  takes 
up  the  documents  pertaining  to  the  life  of  the  Reformer,  and,  follow¬ 
ing  strictly  the  method  of  Strauss,  proves  their  untrustworthiness. 

2  Professor  Norton,  in  his  Internal  Evidences  of  the  Gospels. 


SOPHISTRY  OF  STRAUSS. 


399 


tion.  The  one  effort  is  just  as  successful  as  the  other. 
The  advocates  of  the  mythical  theory  are  very  zealous 
in  their  repugnance  to  forced  harmonizing,  hut  forced 
disharmonizing  is  surely  not  less  unworthy.  What  is 
the  issue  raised  by  Strauss  ?  It  is  not  the  question 
whether  the  Gospels  are  free  from  discrepances  ;  nor 
is  it  the  question  whether  these  narratives  are  inspired, 
or  what  kind  and  degree  of  inspiration  belongs  to 
them ;  nor  is  it,  in  general,  the  question  how  far  they 
may,  or  may  not,  partake  of  imperfections,  from  which 
competent  and  credible  witnesses  are  not  expected  to 
be  wholly  exempt.  But  the  essential  truth  of  these 
narratives  is  the  proposition  which  he  impugns,  and 
which,  as  we  affirm,  he  utterly  fails  to  overthrow. 

A  great  many  causes  besides  error,  either  innocent 
or  wilful,  may  introduce  modifications  into  the  form  of 
a  narrative.  Of  this  all  are  aware  who  have  pursued 
historical  investigations,  or  are  conversant  with  courts 
of  law,  or  even  observant  of  ordinary  conversation 
Where  brevity  is  aimed  at,  not  only  an  omission,  but 
some  modification,  of  features  of  a  narrative  is  often 
required.  A  peculiar  interest  in  one  element  of  a 
transaction  may  have  the  same  effect,  or  may  lead  a 
reporter  to  change  the  order  of  circumstances.  Bor 
the  sake  of  making  a  transaction  intelligible  to  a  par¬ 
ticular  person  or  class,  some  addition  or  subtraction 
may  be  necessary.  At  one  time,  an  event  may  be 
stated  in  the  dryest  form ;  at  another,  the  same  event 
may  be  pictured  to  the  imagination.  Two  reports  of 


400 


MYTHICAL  THEORY  OF  STRAUSS. 


the  same  transaction  will  often  seem  irreconcilable,  but 
a  new  fact,  coming  to  light,  removes  the  contradiction. 
These  are  universally  acknowledged  principles.  To 
hold  living  witnesses,  or  documents,  to  a  mathematical 
accuracy  of  statement,  or  to  an  absolute  completeness, 
on  the  penalty  of  being  cast  out  of  court,  is  disreputa¬ 
ble  sophistry. 

These  are  grave  charges  against  the  critical  method 
of  Strauss,  and  we  proceed  to  substantiate  them  by 
examples.  On  account  of  the  demand  made  by  the 
Pharisees  that  Jesus  should  give  them  “  a  sign/'  or 
“  a  sign  from  heaven  ”  1  (Mark  viii.  11,  12  ;  Matt.  xii. 
38  seq.,  xvi.  1  seq. ;  Luke  xi.  29  seq.),  and  the  refusal 
of  Jesus,  Strauss  affirms  that  Christ  is  here  said  to 
disclaim  the  working  of  miracles  !  That  is,  the  evan¬ 
gelist,  in  each  case,  so  stultifies  himself  as  to  put  on 
the  same  page  with  the  record  of  miracles  such  a 
disavowal  by  Christ !  The  simple  truth  is,  that  the 
“  sign  ”  was  a  peculiar  manifestation  in  the  sky,  ex¬ 
pected  to  attend  the  advent  of  the  Messiah,  and  which 
the  Pharisees  demanded  in  addition  to  all  the  other 
miracles.2  Strauss  says  that  Jesus,  in  forgiving  the 
sins  of  the  paralytic  (Matt.  ix.  2),  recognized  the 
Jewish  doctrine  of  the  allotment  of  evil  in  this  life  in 
exact  proportion  to  the  sin  of  the  individual.3  Yet 

1  Leben  Jesu ,  E.  II.  s.  4. 

2  See  ISTeander  on  John  vi.  30  {Leben  Jesu) ;  Meyer  on  Matt, 
xvi.  1. 

3  Leben  Jesu ,  B.  II.  s.  75  seq. 


SOPHISTRY  OF  STRAUSS. 


401 


this  doctrine  is  plainly  inconsistent  with  what  Christ 
said  on  hearing  of  the  Galileans  “  whose  blood  Pilate 
had  mingled  with  their  sacrifices ;  ”  with  the  declara¬ 
tions  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount ;  with  the  parable 
of  the  Rich  Man  and  Lazarus,  and  with  the  statement 
in  respect  to  the  man  born  blind  (John  ix.  3).  That 
an  opposite  doctrine  is  expressly  taught  in  several  of 
these  passages,  Strauss  allows.  It  is  only  needful  to 
suppose  that  in  the  particular  case  of  the  paralytic,  his 
disease  was  directly  occasioned  by  some  sin,1  or  that 
Jesus  saw  that  his  conscience  was  troubled.2  On  how 
slender  a  foundation  is  a  gross  inconsistency  charged 
upon  the  Great  Teacher,  or  upon  the  historians  who 
report  him ! 

A  specimen  of  numerous  minor  perversions  of  the 
sense  of  Scripture,  is  the  remark  of  Strauss  upon  Matt, 
xxi.  7,  where  it  is  said  that  the  disciples  “  brought 
the  ass  and  the  colt,  and  put  on  them  their  clothes, 
and  they  set  him  thereon.”  The  last  word,  the 
translation  of  inccvco  avicov ,  Strauss  refers  to  the 
animals,  and  strives  to  make  the  evangelist  utter 
nonsense ; 3  whereas  the  pronoun  refers  to  the  clothes  : 4 
and  even  if  the  construction  of  Strauss  were  correct, 
he  could  only  in  fairness  convict  the  evangelist  of  using 
a  loose,  collocpiial  expression.  A  similar  instance  of 
quibbling  is  the  effort  to  foist  upon  John  the  error  of 

1  So  Meyer,  ad  loc.  4  So  N eander  and  Meyer. 

2  So  Bleek,  Synopt.  ErJd  s.  75.  3  Leben  Jesu ,  B.  II.  s.  274. 

26 


402 


MYTHICAL  THEORY  OE  STRAUSS, 


supposing  that  the  High  Priesthood  was  an  annual 
office,  because  he  alludes  to  an  individual  as  “  Pligh 
Priest  that  year/5 1  In  the  narrative  of  John,  Peter  is 
made  to  go  first  into  the  sepulchre,  according  to  Strauss, 
out  of  respect  to  the  vulgar  notion  concerning  Peter ; 
and  John  must  be  made  out  to  be  the  first  to  believe  in 
the  Resurrection.2  But  why  not  rather  give  to  Peter 
the  last  distinction,  or  to  John  the  first  ?  Is  it  possi¬ 
ble  for  criticism  to  be  more  arbitrary  and  groundless  ? 
The  relation,  we  are  told,  in  which  John  is  placed  to 
Peter,  in  the  fourth  Gospel,  is  “  suspicious  ” 3 — 
verdaclitig  is  a  favorite  word  with  Strauss — but  the 
position  of  John  among  the  disciples  is  attested  not 
only  in  the  Acts  but  also  by  Paul,  who  styles  him, 
Peter,  and  James,  the  pillars  of  the  church  at  Jeru¬ 
salem.4  Peter’s  confession  of  faith  (Matt.  xvi.  16) 
is  construed  into  a  proof  that  even  the  disciples  had 
not  before  taken  Jesus  for  the  Messiah.  But  the 
fervor  and  depth  of  Peter’s  faith,  the  peculiar  source 
of  it,  and  perhaps,  the  glimpse  of  the  higher  nature  of 
Jesus  involved  in  it,  together  with  the  fact  that  it  was 
uttered  at  the  moment  when  others  were  deserting 
him,  constitute  its  peculiarity  and  explain  the  marked 
commendation  by  Christ.  To  what  reader  of  the 
passage  did  the  notion  of  Strauss  ever  occur  ?  Who 
ever  felt  any  difficulty  of  the  sort  ?  Noteworthy  is 
the  timidly- asserted  imputation  of  an  admixture  of 

1  Leben  Jesu,  B.  II.  s.  361.  2  Leben  Jesu,  B.  II.  s.  582. 

3  Leben  Jesu ,  B.  I.  s.  582.  4  Leben  Jesu ,  B.  I.  s.  497. 


SOPHISTRY  OF  STRAUSS. 


403 


political  elements  in  the  plan  of  Jesus.1  The  abstain¬ 
ing  from  every  effort  to  organize  a  political  party,  the 
explicit  abjuring  of  a  design  to  found  a  kingdom  of 
this  world,  the  acknowledgment  of  earthly  magistrates, 
the  essentially  spiritual  character  of  all  the  doctrines 
and  precepts  of  Christ,  are  not  denied.  One  would 
think  that  this  were  enough  to  acquit  him  of  the 
slightest  participation  in  the  current  Jewish  notion  of 
a  political  Messiah.  All  that  Strauss  brings  to  sup¬ 
port  his  charge  from  the  words  of  Jesus,  is  the  promise 
that  the  disciples  should  sit  on  twelve  thrones,  judging 
the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel.  But  this  was  to  be  at  the 
Tcaliyytvtoia — in  the  future  spiritual  kingdom  of  the 
new  heavens  and  the  new  earth.  If  this  proves  a 
temporal  idea  of  the  messianic  kingdom,  then  the 
declaration  of  Paul  that  the  saints  shall  judge  the 
world,  would  prove  that  he  held  the  same.  The 
promise  of  Christ  presents,  in  a  tropical  form,  the 
reward  of  an  ultimate  participation  in  his  own  hea¬ 
venly  glory.  The  insinuation  of  Strauss  that  the 
entrance  of  Christ  into  Jerusalem,  riding  on  an  ass, 
was  a  claim  for  political  recognition,  does  not  merit 
a  reply. 

Under  this  head  may  be  mentioned  the  neglect  of 
Strauss  to  adhere  to  his  own  theory,  in  the  frequent 
implication  of  a  wilful  deception  on  the  part  of  the 
evangelists.  This  peculiarity  of  his  criticism  is  worthy 
of  marked  attention.  He  is  perpetually  crossing  the 

1  Leben  Jesu ,  B.  I.  s.  518  seq. 


404 


MYTHICAL  THEORY  OP  STRAUSS. 


line  that  separates  the  mythical  from  the  mendacious. 
He  thus  proceeds  frequently  upon  a  theory  which  he 
professes  to  reject.  A  consciousness  on  the  part  of  an 
historian  that  his  statements  are  not  conformed  to  the 
truth,  makes  him  guilty  of  intentional  falsehood.  Then 
we  have  not  myth,  but  lie.  When  Strauss  says  that 
the  cases  of  the  healing  of  the  blind  are  much  more 
numerous  than  the  instances  of  the  healing  of  lepers, 
because  the  former  admit  of  a  greater  variety  of  cir¬ 
cumstances  ; 1  when  he  states  that  the  healing  of  the 
impotent  man  (John  v.  1  seq.)  was  framed  on  the  basis 
of  narratives  in  the  other  Gospels,  and  made  to  take 
place  on  the  Sabbath,  because  the  words  “  take  up  thy 
bed  and  walk/’  would  furnish  the  most  suitable  text 
for  the  dispute,  that  follows,  about  the  observance  of 
the  Sabbath ; 2  when  he  says  that  the  prediction  by 
Christ  of  the  mode  of  his  death  was  attributed  to  him 
from  a  desire  to  relieve  the  feeling  which  was  ex¬ 
cited  by  the  shameful  character  of  the  cross  ;  when 
he  affirms  that  the  foreknowledge  of  the  treason  of 
Judas  was  falsely  ascribed  to  Jesus  from  a  like  motive ; 3 
when  he  says  that  the  reference  in  John  (John  xviii. 
26)  to  a  kinsman  of  Malchus  is  artificial  and  unhis- 
torical,  being  put  in  simply  to  fix  Malchus  immovably 
in  the  narrative ; 4  when  he  charges  that  the  account 
of  Pilate’s  washing  of  his  hands,  sprung  from  a  desire 
of  Christians  to  make  the  innocence  of  Christ  seem 

1  Leben  Jesu ,  B.  II.  s.  64.  2  Leben  Jesu ,  B.  II.  s.  122. 

8  Leben  Jesu ,  B.  II.  s.  371.  4  Leben  Jesu ,  B.  II.  s.  475. 


SOPHISTRY  OP  STRAUSS. 


405 


clear  and  certain; 1  and  in  numerous  other  places,  some 
of  which  have  been  touched  upon  under  former  topics, 
Strauss  virtually  accuses  the  sacred  writers  and  early 
disciples  of  conscious  falsehood.  lie  thus  falls  back 
upon  a  scheme  of  infidelity  which  the  advocates  of  the 
mythical  theory  are  fond  of  decrying  as  obsolete  and 
as  supplanted  by  their  own  more  refined  and  charitable 
view. 

Of  the  unwarrantable  attempt  to  fix  a  contradiction 
which  shall  impair  their  credit,  upon  the  Gospel  writers, 
where  no  contradiction  really  exists,  there  is  a  multi¬ 
tude  of  examples  in  Strauss.  Thus,  in  comparing  the 
healing  of  the  paralytic  in  the  record  of  Matthew 
(Matt.  ix.  1  seq.,)  with  the  narrative  of  the  same  event 
in  Mark  and  Luke  (Mark  ii.  3  seq. ;  Luke  v.  18  seq.), 
he  intimates  that  the  two  latter,  in  saying  that  a  mul¬ 
titude  came  to  Christ,  start  with  an  exaggeration  of  the 
simpler  story  of  Matthew ;  although  Matthew  closes 
the  account  of  the  miracle  with  the  words,  “  and  when 
the  multitude  saw  it ,  they  marvelled.” 2  It  would  seem 
no  great  inaccuracy  in  Luke  and  Mark  to  mention  at 
the  beginning  what  Matthew  mentions  at  the  end  of 
the  narrative.  If  one  evangelist  is  more  circumstantial 
than  another,  the  additional  matter  is  at  once  pro¬ 
nounced  a  later,  fictitious  addition.  In  the  healing  of 
the  Centurion’s  son,  because  Matthew  abbreviates  the 
incident,  omitting  to  mention  the  messages  sent  by  the 

1  Leben  Jem ,  B.  II.  s.  37. 

2  Leben  Jem ,  B.  II.  s.  503. 


406  MYTHICAL  THEORY  OF  STRAUSS. 

Centurion,  these  are  at  once  set  down  as  exaggerations 
of  the  original  story.1  As  if  a  writer  were  bound,  in 
all  cases,  to  give  details  !  The  main  points — the  faith 
of  the  Centurion  and  the  healing  from  a  distance — 
are  clearly  presented  in  Matthew ;  and  these  are  the 
essential  points  in  the  incident.  On  similar  grounds 
the  charge  of  exaggeration  is  brought  against  Mark 
and  Luke  (Mark  v.  22  seq. ;  Luke  viii.  41  seq.),  on 
account  of  the  narrative  of  the  cure  of  the  daughter 
of  Jairus,  which  Matthew  (Matt.  ix.  18  seq.)  also  gives 
in  an  abbreviated  form.  Such  criticism  upon  secular 
history  would  be  scouted.  Strauss  labors  hard  to  make 
out  a  contradiction  between  certain  statements  in  John 
concerning  Judas  (John  xiii.  27—30),  and  the  statement 
of  the  synoptical  writers,  that  he  had  previously  bar¬ 
gained  with  the  priests  ;  but  John  says  nothing  incon¬ 
sistent  with  this.  So  Strauss  would  set  the  other 
evangelists  in  opposition  to  John,  in  reference  to  the 
statement  of  the  latter,  that  Judas  went  out  from  the 
Supper,  although  the  fact  is  that  they  say  nothing 
about  it  one  way  or  the  other.  A  baseless  charge  of 
contradiction  is  founded  on  the  statement  of  John  that 
Christ  bore  his  cross,  and  the  statement  of  the  othei 
evangelists  that,  on  the  way  to  the  place  of  crucifixion, 
it  was  laid  upon  a  man  named  Simon.2  It  is  a  poor 
cause  which  requires  such  perverse  interpretation  to 
prop  it  up. 


1  Leben  Jesu ,  B.  II.  s.  94  seq. 
3  Leben  Jesu ,  B.  II.  s.  509. 


FALLACIES  OF  STRAUSS. 


40? 


Besides  the  artificial  interpretation  in  the  work  of 
Strauss,  his  criticism  is  marked  by  a  pervading  fallacy. 
He  reasons  in  a  circle,  using  now  the  authority  of  the 
Synoptics  to  disprove  a  statement  in  John,  and  now 
the  authority  of  John  to  disprove  a  statement  of  the 
Synoptics.  He  is  ever  calling  back  this  or  that  wit¬ 
ness  whom  he  has  himself  driven  out  of  court,  and 
seeking  to  make  out  a  point  by  the  use  of  his  testi¬ 
mony. 

Another  fallacy  runs  through  Strauss’s  work  and 
vitiates  much  of  his  reasoning.  He  is  continually 
ascribing  features  in  the  Gospel  narratives  to  the  desire 
or  tendency  of  the  disciples  “  to  glorify  their  master.” 
This  tendency  or  desire  is  assumed  without  proof.  Be¬ 
ing  thus  arbitrarily  assumed,  it  is  freely  used  to  throw 
discredit  on  the  narratives,  while  it  is  only  on  the 
foundation  of  the  assumed  falsehood  of  the  narratives 
that  the  existence  of  such  a  desire  or  tendency  is 
supposed ! 

X.  The  connecting  of  the  various  portions  of 
the  Gospel  history  with  predictions  and  incidents 
which,  it  is  alleged,  served  as  a  spur  and  model  for 
the  mythopceic  faculty,  is  generally  far-fetched  and 
forced. 

If  Strauss  fails  in  his  negative  work  of  proving  the 
falsity  of  the  New  Testament  history,  his  failure  to 
account  for  the  construction  of  it  is  not  less  signal. 


408  MYTHICAL  THEORY  OF  STRAUSS. 

If  Christ  was  to  heal  the  sick,  some  degree  of  resem¬ 
blance  between  his  miracles  and  those  wrought  by  the 
Old  Testament  prophets  was  to  be  expected.  Yet 
Strauss  seldom  finds  a  resemblance  near  enough  to 
render  the  assertion  plausible  that  one  event  could  have 
stimulated  the  fancy  to  the  production  of  the  other. 
In  various  cases,  where  there  is  a  palpable  difficulty  in 
applying  his  theory,  he  takes  refuge  in  the  arbitrary, 
unsupported  affirmation  that  features  originally  belong¬ 
ing  to  the  Gospel  narrative  have  been  effaced  and  other 
features  substituted  for  them.  In  regard  to  other  mi¬ 
raculous  occurrences  described  in  the  Gospels,  he  is 
unable  to  fasten  decidedly  on  anything  which  could 
have  put  the  imagination  of  the  disciples  upon  framing 
them.  But,  of  course,  one  test  of  his  theory  must  be 
its  applicability  to  the  details  of  the  New  Testament 

The  justice  of  the  preceding  remarks  may  be  evinced 
by  illustrations.  Strauss  makes  the  healing  of  the 
Centurion’s  son  a  myth,  founded  on  the  healing  of 
Naaman  by  the  prophet  Elisha  (2  Kings  v.  8  seq.).1 
But  only  in  the  one  circumstance,  that  the  prophet  did 
not  go  out  personally  to  meet  Naaman,  do  the  two 
miracles  resemble  each  other ;  and  even  here  there  is 
the  marked  difference,  that  in  the  case  of  Naaman  a 
message  promising  a  cure  wras  sent  to  the  diseased 
person  himself.  Moreover,  the  Centurion’s  son  was  a 
paralytic,  while  Naaman  was  cured  of  the  more  terrible 


1  Leben  Jem ,  B.  II.  s.  3. 


ORIGINALITY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  MIRACLES.  409 

disease  of  leprosy ;  but  a  leading  canon  of  Strauss  is 
that  the  messianic  miracle  will  be  an  exaggerated  copy 
of  the  Old  Testament  original.  The  healing  of  the 
withered  hand  (Matt.  xii.  10  paral.)  is  said  to  be  a 
fancy-copy  of  the  healing  of  JeroboanTs  hand  (1  Kings 

xiii.  6).  But  the  prominent  point,  which  would  not 
have  been  forgotten,  in  the  latter  naTrative,  is  the 
character  of  the  king  thus  healed.  He  stretched  out 
his  hand  unrighteously,  and  could  not  draw  it  back. 
Tor  the  miracle  of  calming  the  sea,  Strauss  vainly 
searches  for  some  Old  Testament  parallel.  He  is 
obliged  to  fall  back  on  passages  (Ps.  cvi.  9 ;  Nahum  i. 
4  ;  Ex.  xiv.  16,  21),  all  of  which  relate  to  the  drying 
up  of  the  sea }  Whence  the  extraordinary  deviation  in 
the  Gospel  narrative  ?  Strauss  can  think  of  no  other 
solution  than  the  fact  that,  being  in  a  ship,  Christ 
could  not  be  well  conceived  of  as  making  bare  the  bed 
of  the  sea  !  But  if  there  was  this  difficulty,  could  not 
the  myth-makers  have  taken  care  to  place  him  in  a 
more  convenient  position  ?  The  account  of  the  mirac¬ 
ulous  draught  of  fishes  in  John  (c.  xxi.),  is  pronounced 
a  mythical  combination  of  Luke  v.  4  seq.  and  Matt. 

xiv.  22  seq.  But  Strauss  is  embarrassed  by  falling 
into  conflict  with  two  of  his  own  axioms,  one  of  which 
is  that  the  later  account  has  most  of  miracle,  and  that 
in  John,  especially,  the  miraculous  is  carried  to  the 
highest  point :  whereas,  in  the  case  before  us,  John 
represents  Peter  as  swimming  to  the  shore,  while,  in 


J  Leben  Jesv ,  B.  II.  s.  166. 


410 


MYTHICAL  THEORY  OF  STRAUSS. 


the  earlier  narratives,  he  walked  on  the  sea.  The  mir¬ 
acle  of  the  transfiguration  occasions  Strauss  great 
trouble.  There  is,  indeed,  the  account  of  the  shining 
of  the  face  of  Moses,  although  this  was  after  his  descent 
from  the  mountain,  and  of  the  voice  out  of  a  cloud ;  but 
it  happens  that  the  chronology  of  this  miracle  of  the 
transfiguration  is  so  definitely  fixed,  the  event  is  so 
connected  with  things  before  and  after,  that  the  his¬ 
torical  character  of  the  narrative  cannot  well  be 
doubted.1  Tor  the  miracle  of  the  stater  in  the  mouth 
of  the  fish,  no  antecedent  prophecy  or  incident  can  be 
found.  The  same  is  true  of  the  miracle  of  the  healing 
of  the  ten  lepers  ;  and  Strauss  resorts  to  the  supposi¬ 
tion  that  a  parable  has  here  been  mistaken  for  a  fact. 
It  is  only  by  searching  the  Old  Testament  and  the 
Rabbies,  and  combining  one  scrap  here  with  anothei 
there,  as  the  necessities  of  each  case  demand,  that 
Strauss  is  able  to  make  any  practical  application  of 
his  theory.  The  most  that  he  shows,  when  he  is 
most  fortunate,  is  that  a  given  narrative  might  possi¬ 
bly  have  grown  out  of  this  or  that  story  or  predic¬ 
tion.  But,  possibly  not ;  possibly  the  narrative  is  the 
record  of  a  fact.  A  probability  is  what  Strauss  fails 
to  make  out. 

We  leave  here  the  special  criticism  contained  in 
Strauss’s  work.  But  there  remain  to  be  presented 
several  considerations  of  a  more  general  character. 

1  See  Bleek’s  Synopt.  Uriel.,  B.  II.  s.  56-67. 


CHARACTER  OF  THE  FOUNDERS  OF  CHRISTIANITY.  411 


XI.  The  mythical  theory  is  inconsistent  with  a  fair 
view  of  the  temper  and  character  of  those  immediately 
concerned  in  the  founding  of  Christianity. 

Christ  chose  twelve  disciples  to  be  constantly  with 
him,  in  order  that  an  authentic  impression  of  his  own 
character  and  an  authentic  representation  of  his  deeds 
and  teaching,  might  go  forth  to  the  world.  We  find 
them,  even  in  Paul,  designated  as  “the  Twelve,”  and  a 
marked  distinction  is  accorded  to  them  in  the  early 
written  Apocalypse.1  The  nature  of  their  office,  even 
if,  contrary  to  all  reason,  the  testimony  of  the  Gospels 
were  rejected,  is  made  abundantly  clear  by  those  writ¬ 
ings  of  Paid  which  are  acknowledged  by  the  skeptical 
school  to  be  genuine.  Their  function  was  to  testify  of 
Christ.  Understanding  their  office,  it  was  natural  that, 
as  Luke  relates,  they  should  feel  called  upon,  after  the 
defection  of  Judas,  to  fill  up  their  original  number  by 
selecting  a  person  who  had  “  companied  ”  with  them 
through  the  public  life  of  Christ,  to  be,  as  they  said, 
“  a  witness  with  us  of  his  resurrection.” 2 3  A  doubt 
of  this  last  fact,  in  Paul’s  estimation,  was  equivalent 
to  charging  the  apostles  with  being  false  witnesses? 

1  1  Cor.  xv.  5  ;  Rev.  xxi.  14.  The  Revelation,  it  is  allowed  by  the 
Tubingen  school,  was  written  about  a.  d.  70. 

2  Acts  i.  21,  22.  Passages  adverting  to  this  office  of  the  apost¬ 
les  are,  as  we  should  expect,  numerous  in  the  history,  given  in  the 
Acts,  of  their  preaching.  Among  passages  elsewhere  to  the  same 
effect  are  Luke  i.  2,  xxiv.  48 ;  John  xv.  27 ;  1  Peter  v.  1 ;  1  Cor. 
xv.  15. 

3  1  Cor.  xv.  15. 


412 


MYTHICAL  THEORY  OF  STRAUSS. 


The  disciples  were  not  enthusiasts,  but  sober-mind¬ 
ed  witnesses,  distinctly  aware  that  they  held  this 
position. 

But  the  principal  remark  we  have  to  make  under 
this  head  strikes  deeper.  There  is  one  quality  which 
pervades  the  teaching  and  the  religion  of  Christ,  and 
that  is  holiness.  This  attribute  is,  also,  a  marked 
element  of  the  Old  Testament  religion,  in  distinction 
from  the  religions  of  the  Gentile  world .  The  Sermon 
on  the  Mount  touches  the  deepest  chords  of  moral 
feeling.  It  speaks  to  the  conscience.  They  who  were 
drawn  to  Christ  strongly  enough  to  persist  in  following 
him,  were  brought  face  to  face  with  moral  obligations 
and  with  the  infinite  consequences  depending  on  moral 
tempers.  But  holiness  must  affect  the  intellectual 
operations.  It  introduces  the  principle  of  truthfulness 
into  the  soul.  It  puts  an  end  to  the  vagaries  of  fancy. 
It  opens  the  eye  to  realities.  Holiness  becomes,  in 
this  way,  the  safeguard  against  self-delusion.  Nowr, 
in  the  case  of  the  Master  himself,  it  is  irrational  to 
think  that  he  whose  holiness  was  free  from  the  alloy  of 
sin,  could  cherish  a  miserable,  self- exalting  illusion 
concerning  himself.  Could  that  holiness  which  rebuked 
the  least  admixture  of  sin  in  the  motives  and  spirit  of 
his  dearest  followers,  be  so  mixed  with  the  wildest 
enthusiasm?  His  disciples,  not  the  twelve  alone,  but 
all  who  were  willing  to  incur  the  peril  and  the  odium 
of  permanently  attaching  themselves  to  his  cause,  must 
have  partaken  of  his  spirit.  The  distinction  of  good 


CHARACTER  OF  THE  FOUNDERS  OF  CHRISTIANITY.  413 


and  evil,  of  truth  and  falsehood,  was  everything  in 
their  eyes.  The  comparison  of  the  beauty -loving 
Greek  with  the  truth-loving  Hebrew,  even  when  we 
are  treating  of  an  earlier  age,  involves  an  evident 
fallacy.  Much  more  is  the  comparison  of  the  Hebrew 
on  whose  ear  not  only  the  decalogue  but  the  holy  doc¬ 
trines  and  precepts  of  Christ  had  fallen,  with  the 
Greek  of  a  primitive  age,  fitted  only  to  mislead.  In 
the  New  Testament  writings  we  breathe  an  atmosphere 
of  truth  and  holiness.  We  are  in  contact  with  men 
who  feel  the  solemnity  of  existence.  We  are  contin¬ 
ually  impressed  with  the  tremendous  issues  depending 
on  the  right  use  of  the  powers  and  faculties  of  the 
mind.  We  are  among  those  who  are  solicitous,  above 
all  things,  to  be  found  faithful.  Is  it  an  error  to 
expect  from  the  holy  a  clearer  discernment  of  truth  ? 
Is  it  an  error  to  suppose  that  holiness  clarifies  the 
vision  ?  that  holiness  will  save  men  from  confounding 
the  dreams  of  fancy  with  fact  ?  If  this  be  an  error, 
then  the  nature  of  man  was  made  to  be  an  instrument 
of  deception  and  delusion.  Then  we  must  deny  that 
“  if  the  eye  be  single,  the  whole  body  shall  be  full  of 
light/5  * 

Whoever  looks  into  the  Gospels  will  see  that  the 
pardon  of  sin  is  the  great  blessing  promised  and  sought. 
It  was  they  who  craved  this  blessing  who  came  to 
Christ,  and  remained  believers,  when  those  who  had 
followed  from  a  lower  motive  forsook  him.  But  the 
sense  of  unworthiness,  and  enthusiasm,  do  not  coexist. 


414 


MYTHICAL  THEORY  OF  STRAUSS. 


The  feeling  of  guilt  may  engender  unfounded  fears, 
and  run  into  superstition  ;  but  nothing  is  more  foreign 
from  that  play  of  the  imagination  which  is  implied  in 
the  theory  we  are  opposing.  That  conviction  of  per¬ 
sonal  unworthiness,  growing  out  of  self-judgment  and 
moral  thoughtfulness,  which  led  men  to  Christ,  is* 
wholly  averse  from  enthusiasm.  The  desire  to  see 
miracles  was  not  the  deepest  feeling  in  those  who 
adhered  to  Christ.  Rather  was  it  the  desire  of  for¬ 
giveness  and  salvation.  The  miracles  were  a  welcome 
proof  that  Christ  “had  power  on  earth  to  forgive  sins  ” 
but  the  moral  and  spiritual  benefit  was  uppermost  in 
their  esteem.  They  stood  on  a  plane  altogether  above 
that  occupied  by  a  people  in  their  intellectual  childhood 
when  the  higher  faculties  are  in  abeyance,  and  the 
understanding  is  under  the  absolute  sway  of  fancy  and 
the  craving  for  the  marvellous. 

XII.  Christ  and  Christianity  receive  no  adequate 
explanation  from  the  skeptical  theory. 

This  theory  makes  the  character  of  Christ,  as 
depicted  in  the  New  Testament,  to  be  largely  the 
product  of  the  imagination  of  his  disciples.  The  con¬ 
ception  of  that  character,  so  excelling  everything  known 
before  or  since,  combining  all  perfections  in  an  original 
and  unique,  yet  self-consistent,  whole,  the  unapproached 
model  of  excellence  for  the  ages  that  were  to  follow, 
must  be  accounted  for.  The  features  which  the  skep¬ 
tical  theory  must  tear  from  the  portraiture  are  essential. 


CHRIST  AND  CHRISTIANITY  NOT  EXPLAINED.  415 


Take  them  away,  and  there  is  left  only  a  blurred, 
mutilated  image  of  one  in  whom  good  and  evil,  truth 
and  pitiful  error,  were  strangely  mixed.  If  the  Christ 
of  the  Gospels,  says  Julius  Muller,  be  the  creation 
of  the  disciples,  if  from  their  souls  emanated  this 
glorious  and  perfect  conception,  we  must,  then,  revere 
them  as  the  redeemers  of  the  world ! 

But  Christianity — this  mighty  and  enduring  move¬ 
ment  in  the  world’s  history — how  is  that  explained  by 
the  Straussian  theory  ?  The  New  Testament  writings 
bear  witness  on  every  page  to  the  depth  and  power 
of  the  movement.  It  was  a  moral  and  spiritual  revo¬ 
lution,  reaching  down  to  the  principles  of  thought  and 
action,  and  leading  thus,  of  necessity,  to  a  transforma¬ 
tion  of  the  entire  life  of  men.  It  was  literally  a  new 
creation  in  Christ  Jesus.  In  the  case  of  the  Apostle 
Paul,  for  example,  we  see  that  there  was  not  merely  a 
belief  in  the  messianic  office  of  Jesus.  But  Paul  has 
become  a  new  man,  in  the  sentiments,  purposes,  mo¬ 
tives,  hopes,  which  constitute  his  inward  being.  A 
community  sprung  up,  in  whom  old  things  had  passed 
away  and  all  things  had  become  new.  And  how  shall 
we  explain  the  effect  of  this  movement  upon  history 
for  so  many  centuries  ?  It  will  not  do  to  say  that  the 
Amazon,  rolling  its  broad  stream  for  thousands  of 
miles,  and  spreading  fertility  along  its  banks,  is  all 
owing  to  a  shower  of  rain  one  spring  morning.  The 
mind  demands  a  cause  bearing  some  just  proportion  to 
the  effect.  There  are  movements  which  affect  only  the 


416 


MYTHICAL  THEORY  OF  STRAUSS. 


surface  of  society.  There  are  movements  which  pro¬ 
duce  a  wide  commotion  at  the  outset,  but  are  soon 
heard  of  no  more.  But  Christianity  is  no  superficial, 
no  temporary,  no  short-lived,  movement.  On  the  con¬ 
trary,  its  beginning  is  humble  and  noiseless.  Even 
the  most  impressive  natural  phenomena,  which  are  yet 
transitory,  are  no  adequate  symbol  of  the  deep  and 
permanent  operation  of  Christianity.  It  is  not  like  the 
tempest  which,  after  a  day  or  a  week,  is  found  to  have 
spent  its  power.  It  is  rather  to  be  likened  to  the 
great,  silent  force  of  gravitation,  exerting,  age  after 
age,  its  unexhausted  energy.  Now  this  movement, 
beyond  what  is  true  of  almost  every  other  in  history, 
emanates  from  a  single  person.  Whatever  the  pre¬ 
vious  preparation,  whatever  the  attendant  circumstances 
were,  Christianity  proceeds  from  Christ.  The  force 
that  must  lie  back  of  this  prodigious  movement,  in¬ 
heres  in  him.  He  introduced  and  set  in  motion  the 
energies  that  have  wrought  the  whole  effect.  Let  the 
reader  try  to  form  an  estimate  of  this  effect,  in  its 
length  and  breadth,  as  far  as  history  has  yet  revealed 
it,  and  then  turn  to  the  solution  of  it  offered  by  the 
skeptical  theory.  It  was  all  produced,  we  are  told,  by 
a  weak  young  man — an  untaught  Galilean  llabbi,  who 
brought  under  his  influence  for  one,  or  two,  or  three 
vears,  a  few  unlearned  Jewish  laborers  !  We  sav  “  a 
weak  young  man,”  for  only  great  weakness  or  great 
depravity  can  explain  the  monstrous  delusion  that  is 
imputed  to  him.  Now,  is  this  an  adequate  solution? 


THE  FALSE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  STRAUSS.  417 

In  view  of  the  power  which  has  been  exerted  by 
Christianity  to  subvert  rival  and  long  established 
systems  of  belief,  to  command  the  homage  of  the 
highest  intellect,  to  reform  and  mould  society  ;  in  view 
also  of  the  adaptation  of  Christianity  to  the  human 
mind  and  heart,  of  its  harmony  with  natural  religion 
while  providing  for  great  wants  which  reason  discovers 
but  cannot  supply,  an  eloquent  writer  has  justly  said : 
“  it  seems  no  more  possible  that  the  system  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  should  have  been  originated  or  sustained  by 
man,  than  it  does  that  the  ocean  should  have  been 

J  t 

made  by  him.”  1 

XIII.  The  Straussian  theory  is  connected  with  a 
false  and  demoralizing  scheme  of  philosophy. 

At  the  conclusion  of  his  work,  Strauss  describes 
the  apparently  ruthless  and  destructive  character  of 
his  own  criticism.  He  confesses  that  in  appearance  he 
is  robbing  humanity  of  its  chief  treasure.  But  all 
this  he  pretends  to  be  able  to  restore  in  another  form. 
Christianity  is  the  popular  expression  of  philosophical 
truth.  This  last  he  has  no  intention  of  sacrificing,  but 
he  will  return  to  the  believer  all  that  he  has  wrested 
from  him,  though  he  will  return  it  in  a  different  form. 
Proceeding  to  inquire  wherein  lie  the  substance  and 
power  of  Christianity,  Strauss  examines  the  various 
definitions  given  by  the  older  Rationalism,  and  discards 


1  Evidences  of  Christianity,  by  President  Ilopkins,  Section  VII. 
27 


418 


MYTHICAL  THEORY  OE  STRAUSS. 


them.  It  is  not  as  a  collection  of  ethical  precepts,  it 
is  not  as  a  legal  system,  he  holds,  that  Christianity  has 
its  characteristic  quality  and  power  over  mankind. 
This  distinguishing  quality  and  power  inhere  in  Chris¬ 
tianity  as  a  religious  system,  and  proceed  from  the 
great  central  doctrine  of  a  union  of  God  and  man  in 
Jesus  Christ.  This  branch  of  his  discussion  is  carried 
forward  with  a  penetrating  analysis.  How,  then,  does 
he  propose  to  modify  Christianity  ?  What  is  the 
philosophical  truth  underlying  this  popular  conception 
of  the  unity  of  divinity  and  humanity  in  Jesus  Christ? 
The  real  truth,  answers  Strauss,  is,  not  that  God  and 
man  are  one,  or  God  becomes  man,  in  a  single  individ¬ 
ual,  but  rather  in  mankind  collectively  taken.  That 
is  to  say,  God  is  in  each  individual,  in  each  the  infinite 
becomes  the  finite,  yet  not  fully  or  exclusively  in  any 
one ;  but  for  the  indwelling  and  full  expression  of  the 
infinite,  all  the  members  of  the  race  are  required.  In 
plainer  language,  there  is  no  Divine  Person,  with  a 
self-consciousness  separate  from  the  consciousness  of 
men.  There  is  no  being  higher  than  man,  who  can 
hear  prayer.  If  a  man  prays,  he  prays  to  himself. 
God  is  man,  and  man  is  God.  Jesus  Christ  is  divine, 
so  far  and  in  the  same  sense  as  every  other  individual 
of  the  race  is  God.  Men  are  the  transitory  products 
of  the  evolution  of  impersonal  being.  Preedom,  sin, 
accountability,  personal  immortality,  are  merged  and 
lost  in  an  all- engulfing  necessity.  Such  is  the  apothe¬ 
osis  of  man  and  denial  of  God  which  constitute  the 


FALSE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  STRAUSS. 


419 


philosophy  of  Pantheism,  and  which  we  are  invited  to 
accept  as  an  equivalent  for  the  living  personal  God  and 
the  incarnate  Redeemer !  The  demoralizing  tendency 
of  this  necessitarian  and  atheistic  philosophy  is  obvious 
to  every  serious  mind.  Strauss  gives  a  specimen  of  the 
fruits  of  his  philosophy  by  no  means  fitted  to  recommend 
it,  when  he  elaborately  justifies  the  continued  preaching 
of  the  facts  of  Christianity,  including  the  resurrection 
of  Christ,  by  those  who  have  espoused  his  interpreta¬ 
tion  of  them,  and,  therefore,  disbelieve  in  their  historical 
truth.  We  can  scarcely  suppose  that  Strauss  is  in 
earnest  in  pronouncing  his  speculative  dogmas  the  sum 
and  substance  of  Christian  doctrine.  He  is  rather 
paying  a  decorous  outward  respect  to  history,  in  which 
Christianity  has  performed  so  mighty  a  part,  and  to 
the  Church  whose  faith  he  has  assailed.  But  let  it  be 
observed  that  his  work  is  an  attack  upon  the  truths  of 
Natural  as  well  as  of  Revealed  Religion.  That  God  is 
a  Person,  that  man  is  free  and  accountable,  that  sin  is 
the  voluntary  and  guilty  perversion  of  human  nature, 
are  denied  not  less  than  the  miracles  attending  the 
establishment  of  Christianity.  The  postulates,  on  which 
the  need  of  revelation  is  founded,  being  thus  put 
aside,  it  is  natural  that  Christianity  itself,  and  the 
miracles  which  attest  it,  should  receive  no  credence. 
A  clear  perception  of  the  primary  truths  which  God 
has  written  upon  the  heart,  might  have  induced  in 
Strauss  an  appreciation  of  the  Christian  system  and 
its  founder,  such  as  led  Thomas  Arnold  to  feel  that 


420 


MYTHICAL  THEORY  OF  STRAUSS. 


miracles  are  but  the  natural  accompaniments  of  Chris¬ 
tian  revelation  ;  accompaniments,  the  absence  of  which 
would  have  been  far  more  wonderful  than  their  pres¬ 
ence.1 


1  Arnold’s  Lectures  on  History ,  Lecture  II. 


ESSAY  VII. 


STRAUSS’S  RESTATEMENT  OF  HIS  THEORY.1 

Strauss  lias  well-nigh  outlived  his  own  theory. 
His  restatement  is  to  a  large  extent  a  retraction. 
He  still  holds,  indeed,  that  myths  are  found  in  con¬ 
siderable  number  in  the  Gospel  histories.  But  as  an 
exclusive,  or  even  predominant,  mode  of  explanation, 
he  gives  up  his  old  hypothesis  and  adopts  another 
which  in  form  and  spirit  is  wholly  diverse  from  it. 
Yet,  anxious  to  retain  the  name  of  myth ,  he  contrives 
a  new  definition  of  the  term.  Thus  he  partially  dis¬ 
guises  his  <c  change  of  base,”  and  gives  his  new  position 
a  verbal  identity  with  his  old. 

This  change  is  due  to  the  influence  of  Baur.  Baur 
has  been  ready  to  sanction  the  negative  and  destructive 
portion  of  the  labors  of  Strauss.  He  gives  Strauss 
the  credit  of  showing  that  the  several  Gospel  narratives 
are  incapable  of  being  reconciled  with  one  another  or 
depended  upon  as  authentic  histories.  But  for  the 
positive  construction  of  Strauss,  Baur  manifested  less 
respect.  He  pointed  out  the  logical  impossibility  of 
convicting  the  Synoptics  of  error  by  appealing  to  the 


1  Das  Leben  Jesufur  das  deutsche  Volk ,  &c.  1864. 


422  STRAUSS^  RESTATEMENT  OF  HIS  THEORY. 

authority  of  John,  and,  at  the  same  time,  John  of 
error  by  appealing  to  the  authority  of  the  Synoptics. 
Strauss  was  in  truth  continually  seeking  to  prove  his 
points  by  witnesses  whom  he  was  himself  continually 
impeaching.  Baur  said  rightly  that  the  relative  au¬ 
thority  of  the  several  documents  must  first  be  deter¬ 
mined,  and  some  firm  standing-place  be  found,  before 
anything  could  be  proved  or  disproved  by  means  of 
them.  Then  he  also  denied  the  general  applicability 
of  the  mythical  hypothesis  to  the  contents  of  the  Gos¬ 
pels.  How  could  the  fourth  Gospel,  which  emanated 
from  a  single  author  w'ho  professes  to  be  an  eyewitness, 
be  composed  of  myths,  when  myths  are  explained  to 
be  the  involuntary  creation  of  the  enthusiastic  fancy  of 
the  young  Christian  community?  Baur  supplanted 
the  mythical  theory  by  the  so-called  tendency -theory. 
A  great  portion  of  the  narratives  of  miraculous  events 
were  declared  to  be  the  product  of  invention,  and  con¬ 
scious  invention  in  the  interest  of  one  or  another  of 
the  theological  parties  which,  as  it  was  held,  divided 
the  early  Church.  In  this  way,  the  whole  Gospel  of 
John,  no  small  part  of  the  Gospel  of  Luke  and  the 
Acts  (which  were  both  declared  to  be  moulded  and 
colored  to  subserve  a  theological  motive),  and  a  less 
but  not  inconsiderable  part  of  the  Gospels  of  Mark 
and  Matthew,  were  declared  to  have  originated.  Mat¬ 
thew  was  pronounced  by  Baur  to  have  more  of  the 
character  of  a  faithful  record  than  either  of  the  other 
Gospels,  and  was  taken,  therefore,  for  a  starting-point 


HIS  CHANGE  OF  POSITION. 


423 


and  the  chief  authority  in  the  criticism  of  the  evangel¬ 
ical  history.  Now  Strauss  has  adopted  these  doctrines 
of  Baur,  and  to  this  extent  has  relinquished  his  own 
theory.  At  first,  he  apparently  welcomed  these  new 
discoveries  of  the  Tubingen  master,  or  at  any  rate 
cheerfully  adopted  them.  But  in  the  present  work,  he 
chafes  under  the  censures  of  Baur  which  have  appeared 
in  the  posthumous  writings  of  the  latter,  and  gives 
vent  to  his  dissatisfaction.  Yet  he  does  not  withhold 
his  assent  from  the  conclusions  of  his  more  learned  and 
sturdy  compeer,  and  refashions  his  theory  in  accordance 
with  them. 

How  can  wilfully  invented  narratives  be  styled 
myths  ?  Strauss  meets  the  exigency  by  proposing  that 
this  term  be  used  with  more  latitude.  He  will  change 
the  sense  of  it  so  as  to  include  under  the  denomination 
of  myths  all  narratives  which  spring  out  of  a  theologi¬ 
cal  idea,  even  though  they  are  the  deliberate  fabrica¬ 
tions  of  an  individual.  He  argues  that  theologians 
need  not  abide  by  the  meaning  which  classical  scholars 
now  give  to  the  word.  The  motive  of  this  innovation, 
and  wide  departure  from  his  own  previous  definition, 
is  obvious.  Strauss  will  still  be  the  father  of  “the 
mythical  theory,”  even  if  he  must  baptize  a  new  child, 
a  very  different  sort  of  child,  with  the  old  name. 

But  names  are  comparatively  of  little  consequence. 
It  is  more  interesting  to  remark  that  Strauss  has  aban¬ 
doned,  as  far  as  much  of  the  Gospel  history  is  concerned, 
his  fundamental  conception,  and  espoused  a  conception 


424  STRAUSS^  RESTATEMENT  OF  HIS  THEORY. 

which  he  had  formerly  repudiated.  Of  intentional 
falsification  he  professed  to  acquit  the  Gospel  authori¬ 
ties.  The  originators  of  the  narratives  which  they 
contain,  were  artless,  enthusiastic  devotees,  carried 
away  by  a  common  enthusiasm  and  unwittingly  mis¬ 
taking  fiction  for  fact,  the  products  of  their  own  imagin¬ 
ation  for  veritable  occurrences.  Now  they  are  made 
to  be  skilful  theologians,  bent  upon  pushing  forward 
certain  tenets  or  allaying  some  doctrinal  strife,  and  not 
scrupling  to  resort  to  pious  fraud  to  accomplish  their 
end.  This  is  a  change  of  ground  which  no  alteration 
of  the  significance  of  words  will  avail  to  cover  up.  The 
old  infidelity  is  exhumed,  with  the  difference  that  the 
mendacity  imputed  to  the  Gospel  writers  is  attributed 
to  another  motive,  and  the  attempt  is  made  to  disprove 
the  genuineness  of  the  canonical  histories  for  the  sake 
of  disconnecting  them  from  the  apostles  and  thus 
avoiding  the  necessity  of  directly  impugning  their 
testimony,  which  would  be  an  inconvenient,  as  well  as 
ungracious,  task. 

Tor  this  reason,  that  part  of  the  new  Life  of 
Jesus  for  the  German  Peojjle  which  is  most  enti 
tied  to  examination,  is  the  part  relating  to  the 
origin  of  the  New  Testament  historical  documents. 
Most  of  what  Strauss  has  to  say  on  this  topic  has  been 
directly  or  indirectly  answered  on  preceding  pages  of 
this  volume.  He  has  set  himself  to  supply  the  defect 
of  his  previous  work,  where,  strange  to  say,  the  dis¬ 
cussion  of  the  sources  of  knowledge  concerning  the 


HIS  TREATMENT  OF  THE  DOCUMENTS. 


425 


life  of  Jesus  is  extremely  brief  and  meagre.  His 
present  treatment  of  this  important  subject  is  in  the 
spirit  of  a  partisan,  and  not  in  that  of  a  conscientious 
scholar.  When  he  says  that  “in  those  times  every¬ 
thing  passed  for  genuine  that  was  edifying,”  and  that 
dogmatical  grounds  with  the  Fathers,  among  whom  he 
expressly  mentions  Eusebius,  determined  everything,  he 
makes  a  statement  which  every  well-informed  student 
knows  to  be  false.  Every  scholar  knows  that  Eusebius, 
Origen,  and  the  earlier  writers,  as  Clement  of  Alexan¬ 
dria,  Tertullian,  and  Irenaeus,  did  not  govern  them¬ 
selves  by  any  such  canon  as  that  which  Strauss  imputes 
to  them.  Every  scholar  knows  that  each  of  these  Fa¬ 
thers  depended  on  historical  evidence  and  intelligently 
submitted  to  this  test  the  writings  which  claimed  to  be 
apostolic,  some  of  which  they  accepted  and  others  they 
rejected.  Strauss  takes  particular  notice  of  the  testi¬ 
mony  of  Papias,  who  says  of  Matthew  that  he  “  wrote 
the  oracles  ( ra  Xoyux)  in  the  Hebrew  tongue,  and 
every  one  interpreted  (or  translated)  them  as  he  could.” 
This  passage  is  construed  into  an  implication  that 
every  one  altered  or  recomposed  the  Hebrew  Matthew 
to  suit  his  own  taste,  and  then  the  inference  is  pro¬ 
claimed  that  on  the  basis  of  an  original  Hebrew  Gos¬ 
pel,  containing  we  know  not  what,  our  Greek  Matthew, 
the  apocryphal  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews,  and  various 
other  works,  were  composed.  There  is  not  a  syllable 
in  Papias  which  remotely  implies  that  any  such  liberty 
was  taken  with  the  work  which  he  describes  as  the 


426  STRAUSS’S  RESTATEMENT  OF  HIS  THEORY. 

original  of  Matthew.  If  one,  writing  among  English¬ 
men  and  giving  an  account  of  Strauss’s  former  Life  of 
Jesus,  says  that  it  was  written  in  German  and  every 
one  translated  it  as  he  was  able,  who  would  understand 
him  to  imply  that  various  persons  had  altered  and 
essentially  recomposed  that  work?  Whether  Papias 
be  right  or  wrong  in  supposing  that  the  Greek  Gospel 
of  Matthew  which  he  and  his  contemporaries  had  in 
their  hands  was  the  translation  of  a  Hebrew  original, 
the  meaning  of  his  language  is  clear.  He  means  that 
at  first  Greek  readers  had  to  use  the  Hebrew  Gospel, 
as  all  men  now  have  to  use  an  untranslated  book  in 
a  foreign  tongue.  They  have  to  render  it  into  their 
vernacular  as  well  as  they  can.  That  Papias  was  not 
acquainted  with  our  Mark  is  deduced  from  his  state¬ 
ment  that  Mark  did  not  set  down  his  matter  “in 
order  ”  (iv  ra^ti)  ;  a  conclusion  in  itself  most  pre¬ 
carious,  and  entirely  precluded  when  it  is  remembered 
that  no  mention  of  any  other  Gospel  of  Mark  than 
that  of  the  canon  is  to  be  found  in  any  ancient  writer. 
Strauss  has  the  boldness  to  tell  his  readers  that  Luke 
does  not  pretend  to  have  received  his  information  from 
apostles,  although  in  the  proem  of  his  Gospel  he 
explicitly  includes  himself  among  those  to  whom  the 
eyewitnesses  had  delivered  their  knowledge  of  the 
Master’s  life,  and  in  the  Acts  impliedly  places  himself 
among  the  attendants  of  Paul.  In  reference  to  the 
passages  in  the  Acts,  from  which  we  derive  this  fact, 
Strauss  takes  refuge  in  the  untenable  theory  that  they 


HIS  TREATMENT  OF  THE  DOCUMENTS. 


427 


are  a  quotation.  Justin  is  admitted  to  have  made  use 
of  the  first  three  Gospels.  Respecting  the  Gospel  of 
John,  Strauss  is  more  than  usually  sophistical.  In  the 
first  edition  of  his  former  work,  he  had  expressed 
doubts  of  its  genuineness.  Afterwards,  in  deference 
to  the  arguments  of  Ullmann  and  Neander,  he  retract¬ 
ed  these  doubts  and  declared  his  belief  that  John  was 
the  author.  Still  later,  perceiving  the  fatal  effect  of 
this  concession  on  his  whole  theory,  he  recalled  it  and 
went  back  to  his  old  opinion.  Among  other  obser¬ 
vations  in  the  present  book,  Strauss  brings  forward 
the  alleged  silence  of  Papias  concerning  a  Gospel  by 
John  as  a  proof  that  such  a  work  was  not  known  to 
him.  In  the  first  place,  we  know  not  that  Papias  was 
thus  silent ;  it  is  an  uncertain  inference  from  the  cir¬ 
cumstance  that  Eusebius  does  not  speak  of  any  refer¬ 
ence  by  him  to  this  Gospel.  In  the  second  place,  he 
may  not  have  had  occasion  to  refer  to  or  quote  the 
Gospel  of  John,  even  though  he  used  it.  But,  in  the 
third  place,  he  did,  according  to  Eusebius,  make  use 
of  the  1st  Epistle  of  John,  and  the  attempts  of  Strauss 
both  to  cast  suspicion  upon  the  correctness  of  Euse¬ 
bius  in  this  particular  and  to  call  in  question  the  evi¬ 
dent  community  of  the  Gospel  and  Epistle  as  to 
authorship,  are  alike  futile.  Strauss  is  desirous  of 
showing  that  the  Pseudo- Clementine  Homilies  in  com¬ 
mon  with  Justin  derived  quotations,  which  are  not 
found  in  the  first  three  Gospels,  from  the  Gospel  of 
the  Hebrews.  In  one  place  (p.  60),  he  expressly 


428  STRAUSS^  RESTATEMENT  OE  HIS  THEORY. 

enumerates  these  four  as  the  probable  sources  whence 
the  writer  of  the  Homilies  drew  his  citations.  Now 
Strauss  knew  that  this  writer  had  the  Gospel  of  John 
in  his  hands  and  quoted  from  it ;  for  on  a  subsequent 
page  (p.  69)  Strauss  expressly  acknowledges  the  fact. 
Why  not  make  this  acknowledgment  earlier?  Was  it 
because  the  author  of  the  Homilies  is  thus  proved  to 
have  drawn  the  passage  upon  the  necessity  of  being 
born  again,  from  the  Gospel  of  John,  and  not  from  any 
apocryphal  Gospel,  so  that  the  pretence  that  the  similar 
passage  in  Justin  did  not  come  from  John  is  deprived 
of  its  frail  support  ?  Other  points  in  the  remarks  of 
Strauss  on  John  hardly  require  to  be  noticed.  He 
reiterates  the  objection  that  had  Marcion  been  ac¬ 
quainted  with  the  Gospel  of  John  he  would  not  have 
rejected  it,  although  Tertullian  explains  that  Marcion 
was  misled  by  a  false  understanding  of  Gal.  ii.,  and 
rejected  the  other  apostles  from  their  supposed  hostility 
to  Paul.  Strauss  also  does  not  scruple  to  deny  the 
correctness  of  Tertullian  when  he  says  that  Valentine 
made  use  of  the  Gospel  of  John ;  he  parades  the 
opposition  of  the  insignificant  Alogi,  who  also  rejected 
the  Apocalypse  which  Strauss  himself  considers  genu¬ 
ine  :  and  he  borrows  from  Baur  the  far-fetched  hypo¬ 
thesis  that  the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel  shaped  his 
narrative  even  to  the  extent  of  misdating  the  crucifixion 
of  Christ,  for  the  sake  of  suggesting  that  He  is  the 
true  paschal  lamb.  The  fourth  Gospel  saw  the  light, 
according  to  Strauss,  ten  or  fifteen  years  after  the 


HIS  TREATMENT  OF  THE  DOCUMENTS. 


429 


controversy  of  Polycarp  with  Anicetus,  or  some  time 
between  a.d.  160  and  175  !  He  makes  the  Clement¬ 
ine  Homilies  one  or  two  decades  later  than  the  prin¬ 
cipal  works  of  Justin,  or  in  the  neighborhood  of  a.  d. 
160;  so  that,  if  we  are  to  believe  Strauss,  the  first 
certain  reference  to  the  Gospel  is  found  in  the  Homi¬ 
lies.  It  is  demonstrable  that  very  shortly  after  this 
date  the  Gospel  of  John  is  found  in  use  throughout 
the  Christian  Church,  in  every  quarter  of  the  Ro¬ 
man  world,  among  the  orthodox  and  among  here¬ 
tics,  as  a  revered  and  authoritative  document,  the  un¬ 
doubted  work  of  the  Apostle,  and  handed  down  from 
the  generation  contemporaneous  with  him.  Irenaeus, 
Clement,  Tertullian,  are  among  the  witnesses  to  these 
unquestionable  facts.  Moreover,  Irenaeus  was  in  the 
vigor  of  life  at  the  time  when  Strauss  pretends  that 
the  Gospel  first  appeared.  And  Poly  carp,  to  whom 
Irenaeus  in  his  early  youth  had  listened  and  from 
whom  he  had  heard  personal  recollections  of  J olm  him¬ 
self,  lived  until  a.  d.  169  or  until  Irenaeus  was  not  far 
from  thirty  years  old.  We  say  nothing  of  the  satis¬ 
factory  testimony  of  Justin  and  other  earlier  writers. 
The  proposition  of  Strauss  respecting  the  date  of  this 
Gospel  must  be  maintained,  if  maintained  at  all,  in 
reckless  disregard  of  the  evidence. 

Having  turned  his  back  on  the  only  authentic 
sources  of  knowledge,  how  is  Strauss  to  compose  a  Life 
of  Christ  ?  Where  is  he  to  obtain  the  facts  ?  It  is 
obvious  that  no  resource  remains  to  him  but  to  draw 


! 


430  STRAUSS^  RESTATEMENT  OF  HIS  THEORY. 

on  his  imagination.  In  truth,  his  work  might  better  be 
entitled  Conjectures  concerning  the  Life  of  one  Jesus  by 
a  Disbeliever  in  the  Authenticity  of  the  Gospels  and  the 
Existence  of  God.  The  aim  is  to  frame  a  self-consistent 
account  which  shall  exclude  the  supernatural.  An 
evangelist  is  followed  or  discredited  according  to  the 
exigencies  of  the  moment.  He  is  believed  on  one 
point  and  disbelieved  on  another  point,  when  he  could 
not  be  acquainted  with  one  without  knowing  the 
other.  A  scrap  torn  from  its  connection  in  one  Gos¬ 
pel  is  connected  with  a  scrap  torn  in  like  manner 
from  another,  and  the  two,  perhaps,  are  cemented  by 
a  wholly  unproved  conjecture.  Strauss  never  hesi¬ 
tates  to  accept  on  the  authority  of  the  Gospels  any 
fact  that  suits  his  need.  There  is  nothing  to  satisfy 
a  conscientious  inquirer  in  this  arbitrary  proceeding. 
There  is  no  firm  footing  anywhere.  We  are  only 
provided  with  a  mosaic  of  guess-work.  There  is  no 
need  of  following  Strauss  into  the  details  of  his  criti¬ 
cism.  This  has  been  sufficiently  done  in  the  examina¬ 
tion  of  his  earlier  work. 

In  tone  and  spirit  the  second  Life  of  Jesus,  when 
compared  with  the  first,  gives  evidence  of  a  mournful 
degeneracy.  In  that  earlier  production  there  was  an 
almost  total  lack  of  reverential,  religious  feeling.  But 
in  addition  to  this  defect,  the  present  work  is  marked 

4 

by  a  bitter  and  scornful  treatment  of  the  fundamental 
verities  of  religion.  In  the  dedication  to  a  brother 
who,  having  been  long  an  invalid,  died  before  its  pub- 


HIS  TONE  AND  SPIRIT. 


431 


lication,  he  expresses  his  pride  and  satisfaction  that 
the  sufferer  had  endured  his  pains  without  resort  to 
any  supernatural  source  of  help  and  comfort,  and 
that  in  moments  when  the  hope  of  the  continu¬ 
ance  of  life  was  extinguished,  he  had  kept  up 
his  courage  and  composure,  “  never  yielding  to  the 
temptation  to  deceive  himself  by  resting  on  a  world 
beyond.”  Stoicism  is  then  the  practical  philosophy 
on  which  Strauss  falls  back  in  lieu  of  Christianity. 
The  cold  and  barren  spirit  of  endurance,  where  no 
design  and  no  use  are  attributed  to  the  sufferings 
which  befall  us,  is  the  substitute  for  the  faith  and 
humility  of  the  Christian.  There  is  little  danger  that 
this  blind  and  hard  philosophy  will  acquire  a  lasting 
popularity.  Christianity  once  overcame  it  and  sup¬ 
planted  if  ;  Strauss  may  well  apprehend  that  the  same 
result  may  follow  again. 

A  rancorous  tone,  especially  towards  the  Christian 
clergy,  is  an  unpleasant  feature  of  the  present  work. 
The  author  sees  that  Christianity  remains  in  un dimin¬ 
ished  vigor,  notwithstanding  his  supposed  demolition 
of  it  nearly  a  generation  ago.  He  is  obviously  soured 
by  the  disappointment,  and  he  pours  his  resentment 
and  chagrin  upon  the  heads  of  the  ministers,  in  a  tone 
which,  as  he  seems  himself  to  anticipate,  sounds 
demagogical.  He  despairs  of  overthrowing  their  in¬ 
fluence  until  faith  in  miracles  shall  be  extirpated  from 
the  minds  of  the  people.  To  this  class  he  now  ad¬ 
dresses  himself,  in  the  hope  to  have  better  success  with 


432  STRAUSS’S  RESTATEMENT  OF  IIIS  THEORY. 

them  than  he  had  with  the  scholars  and  teachers. 
No  very  deep  reflection  might  suggest  to  Strauss  that 
this  hold  of  the  ministers  upon  the  hearts  of  the 
people,  which  he  thinks  to  be  so  deplorable,  would  be 
impossible,  were  there  not  in  the  human  soul  an  ine¬ 
radicable  sense  of  religion  and  faith  in  the  supernat¬ 
ural,  and  he  might  thus  be  saved  from  cherishing  too 
high  expectations  of  the  effect  to  be  looked  for  from 
the  influence  of  his  books. 


ESSAY  VIII. 


THE  LEGENDARY  THEORY  OF  RENAN.1 

M.  Renan,  in  the  opening  of  liis  learned  work  on 
the  History  of  the  Semitic  Languages ,  remarks  upon 
the  characteristic  traits  of  the  Semitic  branch  of  the 
human  family.  He  reckons  among  these  traits  an 
inbred  attachment  to  monotheism.  This  observation 
illustrates  at  once  the  author’s  habit  of  incorrect,  rash 
generalization,  and  the  effect  of  his  bias  towards  nat¬ 
uralism  in  warping  his  historical  judgments.  With 
the  exception  of  the  Mohammedan  movement  among  a 
single  people,  and  the  religion  of  the  Jews,  all  the 
members  of  the  Semitic  race  were  involved  in  polythe¬ 
istic  idolatry,  and  that  commonly  of  a  gross  kind. 
Among  the  Arabian  descendants  of  Abraham,  the 
monotheistic  faith  of  their  progenitor  had  probably 

never  been  utterly  extinguished ;  and  as  to  the  Jews, 
% 

we  know  from  their  own  records  that  for  ages  they 
were  continually  lapsing  into  the  corrupt  worship  of 
their  neighbors.  Take  out  these  people  who  trace 
their  descent  immediately  to  Abraham,  and  where  is 
the  monotheism  of  the  Semitic  race  ?  Not  among  the 
Assyrians,  the  worshippers  of  Baal  and  Astarte  and 

1  Vie  de  Jesus  par  Ernest  Renan,  membre  de  l’lnstitnt.  18G3. 

2§ 


434 


THE  LEGENDARY  THEORY  OE  RENAN. 


other  divinities,  nor  among  the  Babylonians,  the  devo¬ 
tees  of  a  like  idolatry,  in  whose  foul  ritual  prostitution 
was  a  religious  duty.  Not  among  Syrians  nor  among 
Phoenicians  or  their  colonists,  the  Carthaginians,  by 
whom  there  was  added  to  the  lascivious  cultus  of  the 
more  eastern  peoples  the  service  of  Moloch,  the  “  hor¬ 
rid  king,”  who  was  propitiated  in  the  best  days  of 
Tyre  and  Carthage  by  casting  children  alive  into  the 
flames.  In  truth,  the  nation  which,  if  we  except  the 
descendants  of  Abraham,  has  made  the  closest  ap¬ 
proach  to  a  monotheistic  religion,  namely,  the  Persian, 
belongs  not  to  the  Semitic,  but  to  our  own  Indo- 
European  stock.  How,  then,  can  it  be  contended 
that  the  Semitic  nations  are  naturally,  by  a  law  of 
race,  monotheistic  ?  The  motive  is  obvious.  The 
design  is  to  suggest  the  inference  that  the  pure  con¬ 
ception  of  God  which  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  present, 
was  not  supernaturally  taught,  but  spontaneously 
generated.  Evidences  of  a  Pantheistic  mode  of 
thought  are  not  unfrequently  met  with  in  the  writings 
of  Penan.  “  Two  elements,”  he  remarks  in  one  place, 
“  explain  the  universe ;  time  and  the  tendency  to 
progress.” 1 

Henan’s  Life  of  Jesus  clearly  betrays  the  influence 
exerted  by  this  naturalistic  philosophy  in  determining 

1  See  Renan’s  article  in  the  Revue  des  Deux  Mondes  (Oct.  18G3) 
bearing  the  title :  Les  Sciences  cle  la  Nature  et  les  Sciences  His- 
toriques.  See,  also,  Frothingham’s  Translations  from  Re.nan,  entitled 
Religious  History  and  Criticism  (New  York,  1864),  p.  xxx.  seq. 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  GOSPELS. 


435 


the  author’s  theory  of  the  origin  of  Christianity.  The 
comments  we  have  to  offer  upon  this  production, 
which,  partly  in  consequence  of  its  attractive  style, 
has  had  a  wide  circulation,  will  relate  to  four  principal 
topics  :  the  author’s  estimate  of  the  documents  which 
constitute  the  chief  sources  of  knowledge  ;  his  treat¬ 
ment  of  the  narratives  of  miracles  in  the  Gospels  ;  his 
methods  of  interpretation  ;  and  his  conception  of  the 
character  of  the  personage  whom  he  undertakes  to 
describe. 

1.  In  respect  to  the  date  and  authorship  of  the 
four  Gospels,  Renan  is,  on  the  whole,  much  more 
reasonable  than  most  of  the  German  unbelievers.  He 
says  of  the  Gospels  :  “  all,  in  my  judgment,  date  back 
to  the  first  century,  and  they  are  substantially  (a  pen 
pres)  by  the  authors  to  whom  they  are  attributed.”  1 
This  concession  is  important,  but  the  value  of  it  is 
lessened  by  other  remarks  which  stand  in  connection 
with  it.  The  precise  opinions  of  the  author,  it  is  not 
always  easy  to  ascertain  ;  for,  on  this  topic,  he  fre¬ 
quently  advances  an  assertion  only  to  retract  or  essen¬ 
tially  modify  it  in  the  next  sentence.  He  confidently 
affirms  that  the  title,  the  Gospel  according  to  Matthew , 
and  the  corresponding  titles  of  the  other  Gospels, 
originally  denoted,  not  authorship,  but  rather  the 
source  whence  the  traditions  found  in  the  several 
Gospels  were  drawn.2  The  Manichaean  Faust  us  is 
said  by  Augustine  to  have  broached  the  same  idea, 


1  Vie  de  Jesus ,  p.  xxxvii. 


2  Vie  de  Jesus ,  p.  xvi. 


436 


THE  LEGENDARY  THEORY  OF  RENAN. 


and,  as  far  as  we  know,  he  was  the  first  to  do  so. 
The  phraseology  of  the  titles  admits  of  this  hypothesis, 
but  the  early  Fathers  without  exception  interpret  them 
as  designating  the  authors,  and  such,  in  all  probability, 
was  their  primitive  significance.1  Upon  the  authorship 
of  the  Gospel  of  Luke,  Renan  is  fully  satisfactory 
This  Gospel,  he  says,  is  certainly  written  by  the  same 
person  who  wrote  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  It  is  “a 
regular  composition,  founded  on  authentic  documents,’' 
and  having  “  the  most  perfect  unity.”  The  author 
was  a  companion  of  St.  Paul,  was  thus  a  man  of  the 
second  apostolic  generation,  and  wrote  the  Gospel 
“  after  the  siege  of  Jerusalem,  and  soon  after.”  2  In 
regard  to  the  fourth  Gospel,  the  position  of  Renan  is 
somewhat  vacillating.  Yet  he  admits  that  without 
the  light  derived  from  this  Gospel,  important  portions 
of  the  Life  of  Jesus  could  not  be  understood.  His 
conclusion,  after  suggesting  various  conflicting  hypo¬ 
theses,  seems  to  be  that  the  narrative  parts  of  the 
Gospel  are  the  work  of  John,  and  that  the  discourses 
emanate  from  his  disciples,  who  modified  and  ampli¬ 
fied  what  they  had  heard.3  Renan  deserves  credit  for 
his  emphatic  contradiction  of  the  Tubingen  theory 
respecting  the  fourth  Gospel,  and  for  his  decided 
affirmation,  which  is  well  supported  by  proofs,  that 
the  Gospel  had  the  early  date  which  is  commonly 

1  Bleek,  Einl.  in  das  AT.  T7.,  p.  87 ;  De  Wette,  Einl.  in  das  IV.  T. 
(5  A.)  p.  130. 

2  Vie  de  Jesus ,  pp.  xvi.,  xvii. 


3  Vie  de  Jesus ,  p.  xxiv.  seq. 


THE  ORIGIN  OP  THE  GOSPELS. 


437 


assigned  to  it.  It  is  plain  that  his  misgivings  in 
regard  to  the  discourses  in  John  are  wholly  subjective, 
and  are  incompatible  with  the  external  evidence  for 
the  genuineness  of  the  Gospel,  which  he  himself  ad¬ 
duces.  A  great  part  of  the  discourses  in  John  are 
linked  inseparably  with  incidents  in  the  narrative.  If 
the  discourses  are  given  up,  the  narrative  must  share 
their  fate.  In  his  comments  on  Mat  they/  and  Mark, 
Renan  has  committed  the  gravest  errors.  He  as¬ 
sumes  that  the  discourses  recorded  in  the  first  Gospel 
formed  the  basis  of  the  work,  to  which  the  narrative 
matter  was  afterwards  added ;  and,  likewise,  that  the 
Gospel  of  Mark  has  been  enlarged  since  its  first  com¬ 
position.  The  collection  of  Discourses,  he  thinks, 
took  up  narrative  matter  from  the  primitive  Gospel 
of  Mark,  and  this  Gospel  in  turn  took  up  sayings  of 
Christ  from  the  Discourses.  The  theory  is  built  on 
the  foundation  of  the  testimony  of  Papias,  and  this  is 
done  after  Renan  has  expressly  admitted  that  the 
descriptions  of  this  Rather  “  correspond  very  well  to  the 
general  physiognomy  55  of  the  first  two  Gospels  in  their 
present  form.1  This  admission  is  just,  as  we  have 
shown  in  a  previous  Essay.  If  Papias  did  refer  to  an 
original  collection  of  discourses,  the  basis  of  the  first 
Gospel,  which  is  very  improbable,  yet  it  has  also  been 
shown  that  he  describes  a  state  of  things  which  lay  in 
the  past,  and  that  he  himself  had  in  his  hands  the 
same  Greek  Matthew  that  is  found  in  our  Bibles. 
Renan  has  allowed  himself  to  be  misled  in  this  par- 

1  Vie  de  Jesus ,  p.  xix. 


9 


438 


THE  LEGENDARY  THEORY  OE  RENAN.. 


ticular,  in  consequence  of  overlooking  the  aoristic  form 
in  which  the  statement  of  Papias  appears.  The  only 
other  ground  on  which  Renan  would  infer  this  mutual 
indebtedness  of  the  two  Gospels  to  one  another,  is  the 
well  known  frequent  similarity  in  the  phraseology 
employed.  This  proves,  indeed,  either  that  one  of  the 
two  was  partly  founded  on  the  other,  or  that  both 
drew  from  a  common  source  of  information,  either 
oral  or  written.  But  either  of  these  hypotheses  is 
more  probable  than  the  theory  proposed  by  Renan. 
At  the  same  time,  had  he  confined  himself  to  the 
statements  cited  above,  he  would  leave  untouched  the 
substantial  authenticity  of  the  first  two  Gospels.  He 
only  finds  a  part  of  Matthew  in  Mark  and  a  part  of 
Mark  in  Matthew.  But  he  finally  gives  to  this  bor¬ 
rowing  system  a  far  greater  latitude.  Pounding  his 
statement  on  the  remark  of  a  single  individual,  Papias, 
concerning  himself,  and  exaggerating  the  purport  of 
that  remark,  he  affirms  that  in  the  early  Church  “  little 
importance  was  attached  ”  to  the  written  Gospels. 
He  proceeds  to  say  that  for  a  hundred  and  fifty  years 
the  evangelical  texts  possessed  little  authority  ;  that 
there  was  no  scruple  about  inserting  additions,  com- 
billing  them  diversely,  or  completing  some  by  others  ;  ” 
that  the  early  Christians  “  lent  these  little  rolls  to  one 
another  :  each  transcribed  on  the  margin  of  his  copy 
the  sayings  and  the  parables  which  he  found  else¬ 
where  and  which  touched  him.”  1  Now  these  extra¬ 
ordinary  propositions  are  not  only  without  proof,  but 

1  Vie  de  Jesus ,  p.  xxxii. 


THE  ORIGIN  OE  THE  GOSPELS. 


439 


can  be  demonstrated  to  be  false.  The  habit  of  citing 
passages  inexactly  and  ad  sensum ,  which  belongs  to 
Justin  and  other  writers  of  his  time,  proves  nothing  to 
the  purpose  ;  for  this  is  not  peculiar  to  them,  but  be¬ 
longs  equally  to  Fathers  of  the  next  age,  and  Justin’s 
quotations  from  the  Old  Testament  are  marked  by  the 
same  kind  of  inaccuracy.  Does  Renan  mean  his 
readers  to  believe  that  down  to  “  the  latter  half  of  the 
second  century,”  Christians  individually  altered  their 
copies  of  the  Gospels  ad  libitum  by  interpolations  of 
the  character  described  ?  This  appears  to  be  his  de¬ 
sign.  Yet  conjectures  of  this  nature  have  been  proved 
to  be  not  merely  uncertified,  but  inconsistent  with 
known  facts.1  The  number  of  copies  of  the  received 
Gospels  in  the  early  part  of  the  second  century  must 
have  been  great.  These  copies  were  early  multiplied 
and  widely  scattered  over  the  Roman  Empire,  where - 
ever  Christians  were  found.  Any  essential  variations 
in  the  text  of  either  of  the  Gospels  would  inevitably 
have  perpetuated  themselves,  and  would  appear  in  the 
later  transcriptions.  The  essential  agreement  of  all  the 
manuscripts  of  the  Gospels  which  are  now  extant, 
demonstrates  that  no  changes  of  the  character  sup¬ 
posed  by  Renan  could  have  taken  place.  Besides, 
he  admits  that  Luke’s  Gospel  is  from  a  single  pen, 
and  was  composed  about  the  time  of  the  capture  of 
Jerusalem.2  Why  did  not  Luke’s  Gospel  undergo 

1  See  tlie  argument  of  Norton,  Genuineness  of  the  Gospels ,  Yol.  I. 

2  Vie  de  Jesus ,  p.  xvii. 


440 


THE  LEGENDARY  THEORY  OF  RENAN. 


similar  transformations  ?  What  protected  that  from 
the  lot  which  befell  its  companions  ?  But  Renan 

involves  himself  in  a  labyrinth  of  inconsistencies  on 

\ 

this  subject,  for  Luke  is  declared  to  be  later  than 
Matthew  and  Mark,  and  “  a  compilation  much  more 
advanced/5 1  And  the  resemblance  in  phraseology 
between  the  third  Gospel  and  each  of  the  first  two 
presents  the  same  problem  as  does  the  resemblance 
between  the  first  and  second. 

Such  is  Renan’s  treatment  of  the  question  of  the 
origin  of  the  Gospels.  Compared  with  the  theories 
of  the  German  skeptical  critics,  it  deserves  commenda¬ 
tion.  The  most  serious  defects  of  it  are  the  view 
taken  of  the  discourses  in  John,  and  the  notion  that 
the  Gospels,  at  least  the  first  two,  were  long  subject 
to  arbitrary  changes  in  their  contents ;  a  notion, 
however,  which  is  incongruous  with  Renan’s  own 
previous  concessions. 

2.  As  concerns  the  history  recorded  in  the  Gos¬ 
pels,  and  especially  the  accounts  of  miraculous  events, 
Renan  adopts  what  may  be  styled  the  legendary,  in 
distinction  from  the  mythical,  theory.  These  accounts 
were  rather  the  transfiguration  of  fact,  than  a  pure 
creation  of  pious  enthusiasm.  Renan  is  decided  in 
affirming  that  at  least  a  great  part  of  these  accounts 
emanate  from  the  apostles  themselves,  and  that  acts 
which  passed  for  miraculous  figured  largely  in  the  life 
of  Jesus.  On  this  point  he  cannot  acquit  the  Master 


1  Vie  de  Jesus ,  p.  xviii. 


THE  NARRATIVES  OF  MIRACLES. 


441 


at  the  cost  of  the  disciples.  He  himself  permitted  the 
belief  that  he  miraculously  healed  the  sick  and  raised 
the  dead.  Renan  is  driven  to  this  conclusion  by  his 
more  sober  view  of  the  evangelical  documents.  What 
explanation  of  the  testimony  of  the  Gospels  and  of  the 
extraordinary  phenomena  in  the  life  of  Christ,  can  be 
given  ?  Renan  replies  that  the  Gospels  are  legendary 
narratives,  like  the  lives  of  some  of  the  mediaeval 
saints  ;  and  that  the  events  in  the  life  of  Jesus  which 
seemed  miraculous,  wore  this  character  partly  through 
the  .blind  enthusiasm  of  the  apostles,  and  partly 
through  pious  fraud  in  which  they  had  an  active, 
and  their  Master  a  consenting,  agency.  In  defend¬ 
ing  his  thesis,  Renan  declares  that  Jesus  had  no  idea 
of  a  natural  order  governed  by  laws,  and  was  not 
conscious  of  the  distinction  betwmen  the  natural  and 
the  supernatural,  the  normal  and  the  miraculous.  The 
attentive  reader  of  the  Gospels  will  not  need  to  be 
assured  that  this  proposition  is  devoid  of  truth.1  When 
Jesus  says  that  God  makes  the  sun  to  rise  and  the 
rain  to  fall,  did  he  mean  or  does  he  imagine  that  the 
shining,  of  the  sun,  or  a  showTer  of  rain,  is  a  miracle  ? 
Did  he  not  know  full  well  that  the  growth  of  the  grass 
in  the  field  is  a  totally  different  sort  of  event  from  the 
multiplying  of  the  loaves,  albeit  the  powrer  of  God  is 
requisite  for  both?  Did  he  not  understand  that  his 
miraculous  works  belong  in  a  different  category  from 
the  ordinary  labors  of  the  physician  ?  After  the  cure 

1  See,  on  this  point,  J.  Muller’s  Essay  on  Miracles ,  p.  33.  N. 


I 


442  THE  LEGENDARY  THEORY  OF  RENAN. 

of  a  dumb  demoniac,  Matthew  records  that  “  the  mul¬ 
titudes  marvelled,  saying,  c  It  was  never  so  seen  in 
Israel/  ”  The  miracles  of  Christ  excited  among  the 
witnesses  the  same  kind  of  amazement  which  events 
of  a  like  character  would  occasion  now.1  Equally 
unfortunate  is  Henan’s  comparison  of  the  company 
of  Christ  with  St.  Francis  and  his  followers.  We 
have  already,  in  the  review  of  Strauss,  pointed  out  the 
mistake  of  transferring  to  the  apostolic  church  the 
characteristics  of  the  mediaeval  age.  The  disciples  of 
St.  Francis  were  full  of  the  spirit  of  their  master  ;  and 
enthusiasm  that  falls  below  absolute  madness,  can  rise 
no  higher  than  in  the  example  of  this  monk.  His 
asceticism  stopped  short  of  no  austerities  which  the 
body  could  endure.  His  inward  life,  like  his  outward 
career,  was  a  continual  romance.  His  mystic  fervor 
betrayed  itself  in  his  ordinary  speech — in  his  apos¬ 
trophes  to  birds  and  beasts  and  even  to  inanimate 
things.  “  His  life,”  says  Milman,  “  might  seem  a 
religious  trance.  Incessantly  active  as  was  his  life,  it 
was  a  kind  of  paroxysmal  activity,  constantly  collaps¬ 
ing  into  what  might  seem  a  kind  of  suspended  anima¬ 
tion  of  the  corporeal  functions.”  As  to  the  witnesses 
to  the  “  wounds  ”  of  Christ  on  his  person,  one  of 
them  testifies  to  seeing  the  soul  of  St.  Francis,  after 
his  death,  in  its  flight  through  the  air  to  heaven  j 
And  we  are  to  believe  that  the  author  of  the  Sermon 
on  the  Mount  and  the  Gospel  Parables,  together  with 

1  See,  for  example,  John  ix.  32  ;  Mark  iv.  41. 


THE  NARRATIVES  OF  MIRACLES. 


443 


the  chosen  disciples  who  sat  at  his  feet,  Were  the  vic¬ 
tims  of  the  same  sort  of  hallucination  !  But  hallucina¬ 
tion,  as  Renan  feels  and  frankly  allows,  will  not  serve 
to  explain  these  events  in  the  Gospels.  They  were 
either  miraculous,  or  there  was  fraud.  He  faces  the 
dilemma  and  does  not  scruple  to  call  in  the  aid  of  the 
f raus  jjia  to  account  for  them.  The  resurrection  of 
Lazarus  was  a  pretended  resurrection,  which  the 
disciples  contrived  for  popular  effect,  and  in  which 
Jesus  reluctantly,  but  knowingly  and  wilfully,  played 
his  part  !  It  is  a  hateful  supposition  ;  Renan  himself, 
notwithstanding  the  sentimental  apologies  which  he 
offers  for  the  conduct  of  the  parties  to  whom  he 
attributes  a  proceeding  so  low  and  deceitful,  finds 
his  own  theory  ungrateful.1  Yet  he  adopts  it  because, 
unable  to  believe  in  a  miracle,  he  is  fairly  cornered  by 
the  evidence,  and  knows  no  other  escape.  There  is  a 
condition  of  mind  in  which  devotional  sentiment  has 
broken  from  its  natural  alliance  with  conscience,  and 
the  moral  sense  is  lost  in  the  haze  of  an  artificial 
morality,  when  a  man  may  think  he  can  serve  heaven 
by  cheating  his  fellow-men  even  in  the  things  of 
religion.  Pious  frauds  are  the  spawn  of  this  terrible 
delusion,  that  one  may  “  lie  for  God.”  But  who  that 
is  not  blind  to  the  marks  of  simple,  faithful,  uncom¬ 
promising  rectitude,  can  entertain  for  a  moment  the 
suspicion  that  Jesus  and  his  apostles  were  untruthful? 
that  they  sought  to  forward  their  cause  by  means  of 

1  Vie  de  Jesus ,  pp.  265,  266. 


444 


THE  LEGENDARY  THEORY  OF  RENAN. 


disgusting  frauds  ?  The  supposition  is  too  irrational, 
and  will  find  few,  if  any,  to  embrace  it. 

Renan’s  work,  regarded  from  a  scientific  point  of 
view,  has  the  effect  of  an  argument  for  the  Christian 
faith  and  for  the  verity  of  the  Christian  miracles.  Tor 
the  alternative  to  which  we  are  brought  by  his  discus¬ 
sion  is  that  of  believing  in  the  miracles  or  charging 
Christ  and  his  apostles  with  fraud.  We  have  either 
truth  or  gross  cheating.  Such  is  the  real  alternative, 
and  Renan  has  unintentionally  done  a  service  to  the 
Christian  Church  by  impaling  unbelief  upon  this 
dilemma. 

3.  The  special  criticism  in  Renan’s  work,  if  not 
sophistical  like  much  of  the  criticism  of  Strauss,  may 
be  justly  termed  lawless.  Starting  with  his  unproved 
assumption  that  the  canonical  Gospels  are  legendary 
narratives,  he  seems  to  be  governed  in  his  beliefs  and 
disbeliefs,  in  his  acceptance  and  his  rejection  of  their 
statements,  by  no  fixed  rules.  This  part  of  the  narra¬ 
tive  is  accepted,  and  that  thrown  out,  when  frequently 
there  is  no  assignable  reason  beyond  the  critic’s  arbi¬ 
trary  will.  But  in  styling  Renan’s  critical  procedure 
lawless,  we  had  chiefly  in  mind  his  exegesis  of  the 
New  Testament,  and  in  particular  his  interpretations 
of  the  teaching  of  Christ.  It  is  often  true  that  while 
these  interpretations  are  in  some  degree  plausible,  they 
are  unsound  and  false.  The  effect  of  them,  not  unfre- 
quently,  is  to  foist  upon  Christianity  and  its  author 
doctrines  which  he  never  taught.  The  reader  must 


INTERPRETATIONS  BY  RENAN. 


445 


permit  us  to  vindicate  this  judgment  by  some  illustra¬ 
tions.  Witness  the  mode  in  which  Renan  seeks  to 
support  the  false  assertion  that  the  Saviour  enjoined 
poverty  and  celibacy.  We  may  first  observe,  however, 
that  the  most  which  the  Roman  Catholic  interpreters 
have  pretended  to  find  in  the  Gospels,  is  a  recom¬ 
mendation  of  these  monastic  virtues.  They  are  placed 
by  the  Roman  Catholic  theology  among  the  Ev  angelica 
consilia, — as  not  being  commanded,  not  essential  to 
salvation,  but  as  qualities  of  the  higher  type  of  Chris¬ 
tian  excellence.  The  charge  that  the  renunciation  of 
property  is  required,  as  a  condition  of  salvation,  finds 
no  support  in  the  invitations  of  Christ  addressed  to 
the  poor,  in  common  with  all  who  were  in  suffering, 
nor  in  the  implication,  which  was  the  actual  fact,  that 
a  spiritual  susceptibility,  not  usually  found  in  the  more 
favored  classes,  belonged  to  them.  Confronted  by  a 
fact  like  the  discipleship  of  the  wealthy  Zaccheus,  of 
whom  no  surrender  of  his  property  was  required, 
Renan  says  that  Christ  made  an  exception  in  favor  of 
rich  men  who  were  odious  to  the  ruling  classes  !  As 
if  Jesus  could  think  that  the  sin  of  possessing  wealth 
was  washed  out  when  the  rich  man  happened  to  be 
unpopular  !  Renan’s  perverse  interpretation  of  the 
Saviour’s  rebukes  of  covetousness  and  an  ungenerous 
temper  towards  the  poor,  he  supports  by  appealing  to 
the  parable  of  the  Rich  Man  and  Lazarus.  “After¬ 
wards,”  he  says,  “  this  was  called  the  parable  of  the 
‘  wicked  rich  man.’  But  it  is  purely  and  simply  the 


446  THE  LEGENDARY  THEORY  OE  RENAN. 

parable  of  the  ‘  rich  man/ 7,1  As  if  the  rich  man  were 
sent  to  a  place  of  torment  for  being  rich  !  His  desire, 
we  must  infer,  to  return  to  the  earth  “  to  testify  ”  to 
his  five  brethren,  was  a  wish  to  warn  them  not  to 
possess  property  !  But  what  of  the  response  of  Abra¬ 
ham  :  “If  they  hear  not  Moses  and  the  Prophets, 
neither  will  they  be  persuaded,  though  one  rose  from 
the  dead  !  ”  Even  Henan  will  not  contend  that  the 
Old  Testament  considers  the  possession  of  property  a 
sin.  He  would  be  much  more  apt  to  dilate  on  the 
earthly  character  of  the  rewards  promised  there  to 
the  pious.  Renan  derives  from  Matt.  xix.  10-13,  a 
law  of  celibacy,  instead  of  the  lawfulness  of  celibacy 
when  spontaneously  practised,  as  in  the  case  of  Paul, 
for  the  sake  of  greater  freedom  in  promoting  the 
progress  of  the  kingdom  of  God, — which  is  the  real 
sense  of  the  text.  He  is  even  disposed  to  follow 
Origen  in  the  revolting  absurdity  of  literally  construing 
the  phraseology  (Matt.  xix.  12)  by  which  the  Saviour 
describes  the  condition  of  celibacy.  In  the  context  of 
this  very  passage,  the  Saviour  implicitly  puts  honor 
upon  marriage.  It  was  at  a  wedding  that  he  first 
manifested  forth  his  glory.  The  married  state  and 
the  family  are  held  sacred  in  the  gospel.  Yet  Renan 
does  not  hesitate  to  found  upon  the  injunction  to  for¬ 
sake  father  and  mother,  in  obedience  to  the  higher 
law  of  Christ,  the  charge  that  he  required,  as  an  indis¬ 
pensable  condition  of  discipleship,  the  rupture  of  all 

Vie  de  Jesus ,  p.  175. 


i 


INTERPRETATIONS  BY  RENAN. 


447 


the  ties  of  kindred !  These  preposterous  interpreta¬ 
tions  are  refuted  by  numerous  places  in  the  Gospels 
themselves  and  by  the  whole  history  of  the  primitive 
church.  But  these  inconvenient  passages  it  is  easy 
for  Renan  to  ignore  or  summarily  cast  out.  Other 
examples  of  arbitrary  and  unfounded  assertion  in  Re¬ 
nan’s  work  are  the  statement  that  the  Eucharist  origin¬ 
ated  long  before  the  Last  Supper;  that  Judas  was  led 
to  betray  Christ  out  of  jealousy  of  the  other  disciples ; 
that  John  exhibits  in  his  Gospel  a  feeling  of  rivalship 
towards  Peter,— though  Renan  must  have  observed 
that  Peter  and  John  are  frequently  brought  into  con¬ 
junction  in  the  Acts  as  well  as  in  John’s  Gospel;  and 
Christ  had  not  the  least  idea  of  a  soul  as  separate  from 
the  body, — as  if  he  did  not  speak  of  “  both  soul  and 
body,”  and  imply  the  same  distinction  in  a  hundred 
passages  besides  ;  that  Jesus,  for  the  moment,  thought 
of  using  force  to  prevent  his  arrest, — an  interpretation 
which,  if  it  came  from  anybody  but  a  professed  orient¬ 
alist,  would  be  held  to  indicate  a  singular  incapacity  to 
understand  the  tropical  method  of  instruction,  which 
was  habitual  with  Christ,  and,  in  this  case,  was  em¬ 
ployed  to  impress  on  the  disciples  the  change  in  their 
situation,  involving  dangers  to  which  they  had  not 
before  been  exposed.  These  examples  of  baseless 
criticism  might  be  indefinitely  multiplied. 

4.  The  impossibility  of  forming  a  consistent  con¬ 
ception  of  Christ,  when  the  supernatural  is  rejected,  is 
strikingly  shown  by  the  abortive  essay  of  Renan.  The 


448 


THE  LEGENDARY  THEORY  OE  RENAN. 


most  incongruous  assertions  are  made  concerning 
Christ.  Now  lie  is  credited  with  sublime  attributes 
of  intellect  and  heart,  declared  to  be  the  greatest  of  the 
sons  of  men,  a  character  of  colossal  proportions,  and 
now  he  is  charged  with  a  vanity  that  is  flattered  with 
the  adulation  of  the  simple  people  who  followed  him  ; 
is  accused  of  weakly  yielding  to  the  enthusiasm  of  his 
disciples,  who  were  anxious  that  he  should  be  reputed 
a  miracle-worker,  and  is  said  to  have  given  way  to  a 
gloomy  resentment  and  to  a  morbid,  half-insane  relish 
for  persecution  and  martyrdom.  He  is  thought — this 
highest  exemplar  of  mental  and  moral  excellence,  of 
wisdom  and  goodness,  that  has  ever  appeared  or  ever 
will  appear  on  earth — to  have  not  only  cherished  the 
wildest  delusion  concerning  himself,  his  rank  in  the 
universe,  and  his  power  to  revolutionize  the  Jewish 
nation,  but  he  is  also  said  to  have  declared,  against 
civil  government  and  the  family  ties,  and  thus  to  have 
attempted  a  movement,  most  impracticable  and  mis¬ 
chievous,  for  the  virtual  disorganization  and  overthrow 
of  society  !  Henan  describes  under  the  name  of  Jesus 
an  impossible  being.  Although  incompatible  actions 
and  traits  are  imputed  to  him  without  necessity,  even 
upon  the  naturalistic  theory,  yet  the  prime,  the  insur¬ 
mountable  obstacle  in  the  way  of  the  task  which  Re¬ 
nan  has  undertaken,  lies  in  the  impossibility,  so  long 
as  the  supernatural  elements  of  the  narrative  are  re¬ 
jected,  of  attributing  to  Jesus  the  excellence  which 
undeniably  belongs  to  him. 


ESSAY  IX. 


THE  CRITICAL  AND  THEOLOGICAL  OPINIONS  OF 

THEODORE  PARKER. 

Theodore  Parker  will  be  known,  not  as  the 
inventor,  but  as  a  bold  expositor  and  propagator,  of 
new  opinions.  His  Theology  wras  a  not  very  well 
digested  compound  of  doctrines  drawn  from  various 
and  conflicting  schools  of  Naturalism.  Notwithstand¬ 
ing  his  robust  intellect  and  his  wide  knowledge  of 
books,  his  discriminating  admirers  will  hardly  claim 
that  he  was  either  an  accurate  scholar,  or  a  consistent 
thinker. 

In  a  review  of  the  second  edition  of  the  Life 
of  Jesus  by  Strauss,  which  Parker  published  in  April, 
1840,1  he  takes  a  tone  of  opposition  to  that  writer, 
implies  his  own  belief  in  the  resurrection  of  Christ 
and  in  other  miracles,  and  welcomes  the  partial  ad¬ 
mission  of  the  genuineness  of  John  which  Strauss 
then  made,  but  afterwards  recalled.  In  May  of  the 
next  following  year,  Parker  delivered  the  noted  Ser¬ 
mon,  in  which  he  avowed  his  disbelief  in  the  Gospel 
miracles.  Afterwards,  in  his  Discourses  of  Religion 
and  elsewhere,  he  adopts  the  Tubingen  theories 

1  Christian  Examiner,  Volume  XXVIII. 

29 


450 


THE  OPINIONS  OF  THEODORE  PARKER. 


concerning  the  Gospels  and  the  canon — but  scarcely 
undertakes  to  support  them  by  regular  argument. 
His  critical  remarks,  unconnected  as  they  are,  and 
resting  on  no  independent  researches,  are  possessed 
of  little  scientific  value.  Of  the  canonical  Gospels,  he 
says,  <c  we  must  reject  the  fourth  as  of  scarcely  any 
historical  value.  It  appears  to  be  written  more  than 
a  hundred  years  after  the  birth  of  Jesus,  by  an 
unknown  author,  who  had  a  controversial  and  dogmatic 
purpose  in  view,  not  writing  to  report  facts  as  they 
were ;  so  he  invents  actions  and  doctrines  to  suit  his 
aim,  and  ascribes  them  to  Jesus  with  no  authority  for 
so  doing.”  1  “  The  Gospel  ascribed  to  John  is  of  small 
historical  value,  if  of  any  at  all.”2  Of  Matthew,  he 
says  that  “  the  fragmentary  character  of  this  old  Gos¬ 
pel  ”  is  clear ; 3  and  of  the  Synoptics  generally,  that 
we  know  not  “  when  they  were  written,  by  whom,  or 
with  what  documentary  materials  of  history.” 4  These 
are  the  familiar  propositions  of  Baur  and  his  followers, 
and  have  been  sufficiently  examined  on  preceding 
pages  of  this  volume.  From  his  premises  Parker 
deduces  the  proper  inference  that  the  Gospels  are 
untrustworthy  and  full  of  errors.5 

If  this  be  so,  what  are  we  to  believe  respecting 
Jesus?  The  answers  to  this  question  are  indecisive 
and  self-contradictory.  Now  we  are  told  that  the 


1  Discourses  of  Religion,  p.  236.  2  Ibid.,  p.  258. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  237.  4  Ibid.,  p.  236. 

6  Ibid.,  (e.  g.)  pp,  231,  339. 


PARKER  ON  MIRACLES. 


451 


Gospel  writers  “  would  describe  the  main  features  of 
his  life,  and  set  down  the  great  principles  of  his  doc¬ 
trine,  and  his  most  memorable  sayings,  such  as  were 
poured  out  in  the  highest  moments  of  inspiration.” 
In  the  same  breath  it  is  affirmed  that  no  stress  can  be 
laid  on  particular  events  recorded  in  the  narratives  ; 
that  they  are  a  mass  of  truth  and  error,  collected  about 
a  few  central  facts.1  In  his  practical  use  of  the  docu¬ 
ments,  Parker  is  not  less  arbitrary  than  his  Tubingen 
compeers.  He  believes  where  it  suits  him  to  believe, 
and  elsewhere  the  authority  of  the  evangelists  goes  for 
nothing.  Por  example,  though  he  holds  that  the  Gos¬ 
pel  writers  have  egregious!  y  erred  in  reporting  the 
sayings  of  Jesus,  and,  among  other  things,  in  the 
application  of  general  predictions,  wishes,  or  hopes  to 
specific  times  or  events,2  he  still  confidently  appeals  to 
some  of  these  predictions,  to  prove  the  fallibility  of 
Jesus. 

There  is  one  entire  class  of  events  which  form  no 
small  part  of  the  Gospel  histories,  which  Parker  pro¬ 
nounces  wholly  fictitious.  It  need  not  be  said  that 
wre  allude  to  the  miracles.  He  agrees  with  Strauss 
in  styling  the  narratives  of  supernatural  events 
“mythical  stories;”3  and  like  Strauss  he  deviates 
from  the  mythical  theory  to  make  room  for  the  diverse 
hypothesis  of  Baur.  But  why  should  Parker  deny  the 
truth  of  tins  portion  of  the  Gospels  ?  Unlike  Baur 


1  Discourses  oj  Religion ,  p.  233,  and  Note. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  233.  3  Ibid.,  p.  234. 


452 


THE  OPINIONS  OF  THEODORE  PARKER. 


and  Strauss,  he  professes  to  be  a  Theist,  and  to  be¬ 
lieve  that  miracles  are  possible.  Why  should  he  not 
believe  them  actual  ?  Absence  of  competent  testimony 
cannot  be  the  reason,  for  it  is  plain  that  disbelief  in 
the  miracles  is  the  real  cause,  and  not  the  consequence, 
of  his  impeachment  of  the  testimony.  To  render  a 
satisfactory  answer  to  this  question,  attention  must  be 
directed  to  Parker’s  theological  principles.  It  will 
appear  that  the  denial  of  miracles  is  part  and  parcel 
of  the  denial  of  Revelation,  and  that  the  latter  springs 
from  a  failure  to  perceive  the  ground  of  the  need  of 
Revelation. 

The  fundamental  point  of  Parker’s  theology  is  his 
doctrine  of  the  absolute  religion.  With  his  eloquent 
paragraphs  on  the  universality  of  the  religious  sentiment, 
and  on  the  indestructible  power  which  religion  exerts 
over  mankind,  we  cordially  sympathize.  They  consti¬ 
tute  a  fine  refutation  of  the  Positivist  assumption  that 
religion  is  an  excrescence  to  be  lopped  off  in  the  pro¬ 
gress  of  the  race  from  childhood  to  maturity.  But 
our  concern  now  is  with  the  doctrine  about  the  abso¬ 
lute  religion.  Absolute  religion,  or  religion  in  its 
pure,  complete  form,  is  sometimes  described  by  Parker, 
in  accordance  with  the  Kantian  definition,  as  obe¬ 
dience  to  the  moral  law  regarded  as  the  will  of  God,1 
and  sometimes  as  love  to  man  from  love  to  God,  or 
simply  as  love  to  God  and  man.  Probably  he  would 
modify  Kant’s  definition  by  introducing  the  element 

1  Discourses  of  Religion ,  p.  43. 


THE  ABSOLUTE  RELIGION. 


453 


of  love.  Religion,  then,  is  declared  to  be  expressed 
in  the  law  enjoining  love  to  God  and  love  to  man. 
The  wonder  is  that  Parker  should  seem  to  suppose 
that  this  definition  is  in  any  sense  original  or  peculiar. 
There  is  hardly  a  symbol,  catechism,  or  systematic 
treatise  on  theology,  from  any  branch  of  the  church, 
whether  Latin,  Lutheran,  Reformed,  Socinian,  or 
Quaker,  which  does  not  set  forth  the  same  truth.  The 
greater  wonder  is  that  Parker  should  suppose  that 
Christianity,  as  generally  understood,  is  superseded  by 
this  idea  of  religion.  Christianity  is  a  method  of 
redemption  from  evil,  and  evil  is  the  control  acquired 
in  the  hearts  of  men  by  the  principle  antagonistic  to 
this  law.  That  is  to  say,  Christianity  is  the  means  of 
salvation.  To  hold  up  the  idea  of  the  absolute  religion 
in  the  midst  of  a  world  under  the  sway  of  ungodliness 
and  selfishness,  can  only  be  compared  to  the  conduct 
of  one  who,  when  the  plague  is  raging,  runs  about 
with  an  excellent  definition  of  health.  Parker  is 
naturally  gratified  at  seeing  the  law  in  its  simple  form ; 
but  Paul’s  reply  is  :  “  the  law  ivorketh  wrath ;  ”  “  toe 
know  that  the  law  is  spiritual,”  we  subscribe  to  all 
your  laudation  of  it,  “  but  I  am  carnal,  sold  under 
sin,”  “  for  what  I  would,  that  do  I  not,  but  what  I 
hate,  that  I  do  ;  ”  “  zoho  shall  deliver  me  ?  ” 

Thus,  Parker's  rejection  of  revealed  religion  (which 
is  only  the  disclosure  of  the  divine  redemptive  system) 
is  logically  and  practically  connected  with  his  rejection 
of  the  Christian  doctrine  of  sin.  If  the  Bible  doctrine 


454 


THE  OPINIONS  OF  THEODORE  PARKER. 


respecting  the  present  moral  condition  of  mankind  is 
false,  the  falsity  of  the  Gospel  is  the  proper  corollary. 
But  Parker’s  shallow  apprehension  of  the  great  fact 
of  the  bondage  of  mankind  to  evil,  which  heathen 
religions  as  well  as  Christianity  acknowledge,  and  to 
which  not  Paul  alone,  but  earnest  and  discerning  men 
in  every  age,  have  borne  painful  witness,  is  the  fatal 
defect  in  his  theology.  He  could  see  the  outbreakings 
of  sin  in  oppressive  institutions  and  the  selfish  con¬ 
duct  of  individuals,  and  these  particular  expressions  of 
sin  he  denounced  without  stint.  But  he  attained  to 
no  deep  and  large  apprehension  of  the  principle  of  sin, 
which  pertains  exclusively  to  no  individual  and  no 
class  of  men. 

The  consequences  of  this  fatal  ignorance  are  easily 
traced.  The  attribute  of  holiness  was  almost  stricken 
from  the  conception  of  the  divine  character.  Justice 
was  hardly  distinguished  from  the  personal  passions 
of  hate  and  revenge.  Hence,  the  Bible  representation 
of  the  character  of  God  excited  the  strongest  feeling 
of  repugnance.  This  narrow  view  prevented  Parker 
from  attaining  to  any  just  appreciation  of  the  Old 
Testament.  He  stuck  in  the  phraseology,  and  was 
never  weary  of  scoffing  at  the  idea  of  a  “jealous”  or 
an  “  angry  ”  God.  But  the  New  Testament,  in  its 
doctrine  of  the  desert  and  penalty  of  sin,  was  scarcely 
less  offensive.  How  Jesus,  whom  he  professed  to 
consider  the  highest  embodiment  of  love  and  excel¬ 
lence,  could  be  all  this  at  the  same  time  that  he 


PANTHEISM  IN  HIS  THEOLOGY. 


455 


cherished  these  obnoxious  ideas  and  feelings,  is  a  prob¬ 
lem  which  is  left  unsolved. 

Though  he  was  professedly  a  Theist,  and  though 
a  volume  of  his  prayers  has  appeared  in  print,  Parker’s 
theology  is  strongly  tinctured  with  Pantheistic  modes 
of  thought.  In  the  first  place,  his  expressions  in 
regard  to  the  nature  and  origin  of  sin  are  more  Pan¬ 
theistic  than  Pauline.  Pie  speaks  of  sin  as  the  trip¬ 
ping  of  a  child  who  is  learning  to  walk ;  that  is,  a 
necessary,  and,  if  his  illustration  holds,  an  inculpable, 
stage  in  human  progress.  The  idea  that  sin  is  a  phase 
in  the  development  of  the  soul  and  of  the  race,  and 
is  eliminated  by  the  operation  of  a  physical  law,  is 
only  consonant  with  a  feeble  impression  of  the  guilt 
of  sin,  and  properly  belongs  in  a  system  of  Pantheism. 
The  confounding  of  natural  law  with  ethical  law,  and 
constitutional  imperfection  with  moral  transgression,  is 
a  mode  of  thought  which  Christianity  regards  with 
intense  antipathy.  Iniquity  and  innocent  infirmity 
belong  in  totally  different  categories.  The  Pantheistic 
doctrine  virtually  calls  evil  good,  and  good  evil,  puts 
darkness  for  light  and  light  for  darkness,  puts  bitter 
for  sweet  and  sweet  for  bitter.  The  free  and  responsi¬ 
ble  nature  of  man  is  really  denied,  and  admitted  only 
in  words.  If  sin  is  not  a  voluntary  apostasy  from 
obedience  to  a  law  which  commands  but  constrains 
not,  the  foundation  of  the  Christian  system  is  gone, 
and  the  superstructure  must  of  course  suffer  a  like 
fate.  In  the  second  place,  Parker  discusses  the  ques- 


456 


THE  OPINIONS  OP  THEODORE  PARKER. 


tion  of  the  history  of  religions  in  a  Pantheistic  spirit. 
He  adopts  the  Positivist  speculation,  tracing  Mono¬ 
theism  to  Polytheism,  and  Polytheism  back  to  Peti- 
chism.1  That  is,  the  most  degraded  type  of  religion 
was  first.  This  doctrine  is  against  history,  which 
gives  no  instance  of  a  nation  spontaneously  exchanging 
Polytheism  for  Monotheism.  Polytheism  may  gene¬ 
rate  skepticism,  as  in  Greece,  but  does  not  lift  itself  to 
a  better  faith.  Heathenism  generally  brutifies  and 
degrades  humanity.  But  the  hypothesis  of  such  an 
upward  progress  is  consistent  with  the  general  theory 
that  the  mutations  of  religion  obey  a  natural  law  of 
progress,  and  that  religion  is  one  effect  of  civiliza¬ 
tion,  so  that  in  the  infancy  of  mankind  heathenism, 
and  the  lower  forms  of  it,  necessarily  prevailed.  In 
the  third  place,  when  Parker  comes  to  define  his  con¬ 
ception  of  God,  he  differs  little  from  Spinoza.  There 
is  no  definite  ascription  to  God,  of  the  distinctive  ele¬ 
ments  of  personality,  self-consciousness  and  self-deter¬ 
mination.  “  We  talk  of  a  personal  God.  If  thereby 
we  deny  that  He  has  the  limitations  of  unconscious 
matter,  no  wrong  is  done.”  “  God  must  contain  in 
Himself,  potentially,  the  ground  of  consciousness,  of 
personality — yes,  of  unconsciousness  and  imperson¬ 
ality.”  “  All  mental  processes  like  those  of  men  are 
separated  from  the  idea  of  Him.” 2  His  language 
implies  not  creation,  but  emanation- — a  development 

1  j Discourses  of  Religion ,  Chapter  V. 

2  Ibid.,  pp.  152,  153,  158. 


VACILLATION  BETWEEN  THEISM  AND  PANTHEISM.  457 

I 

of  the  world  out  of  a  prior  potential  existence.  Par¬ 
ker’s  doctrine  appears  to  come  to  this,  that  God  is  the 
infinite  essence  of  which  matter  and  spirit  are  the 
divine  manifestations.  He  does  not  express  himself 
with  philosophical  precision  or  strict  consistency.  But 
this  appears  to  be  the  prevailing  representation  at 
the  bottom  of  his  remarks.  It  is  the  proposition  of 
Spinoza.  In  fact,  from  Spinoza  and  Schleiermacher 
the  principal  ideas  of  Parker  on  this  subject  appear 
to  have  been  learned. 

It,  is  true  that  in  other  places  in  the  writings  of 
Parker,  expressions  hardly  consistent  with  that  repre¬ 
sentation,  and  decidedly  theistic  in  their  purport,  may 
be  met  with.  But  this  is  just  the  characteristic  of  his 
position — an  uneasy  equilibrium  between  the  two 
systems.  Had  Parker  been  thorough  in  his  theism, 
he  would  have  attained  to  profounder  views  on  the 
subject  of  sin,  and  might  have  advanced  to  the  proper 
corollary,  the  need  of  supernatural  redemption.  Had 
he  been  thoroughly  logical  in  his  Pantheism,  other 
elements  in  his  system,  especially  his  practical  dealing 
with  the  evils  of  the  day,  would  have  been  sensibly 
modified.  As  it  was,  he  walked  in  neither  path  with 
firmness  and  consistency ;  and  therefore,  though  his 
popular  influence  was  large,  he  will  leave  no  durable 
mark  on  scientific  theology. 

It  would  not  be  difficult  to  show  that  generous 
ideas  of  philanthropy  have  no  stable  foundation 
except  in  the  Christian  doctrine  respecting  man  and 


458 


THE  OPINIONS  OF  THEODORE  PARKER. 


human  sin.  Theories  of  the  origin  of  heathenism  and 
of  the  origin  of  evil,  such  as  are  broached  by  Parker, 
have  a  close  affinity  with  the  philosophy  which  treats 
portions  of  our  race  as  semi-human,  or  at  least  hope¬ 
lessly  degraded.  Slavery  and  other  sorts  of  barbarity 
seek  in  this  philosophy  their  theoretical  support.  But 
let  the  doctrine  of  Paul  that  paganism  is  the  fruit 
of  a  fall  and  degeneracy  be  held ;  let  his  solemn 
arraignment  of  the  human  family  in  the  opening  of 
the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  be  heartily  subscribed,  and 
the  connected  principle  that  “  God  has  maSe  of  one 
blood  all  men  ”  will  not  be  given  up.  Only  in  the 
pure  atmosphere  of  Christian  theism,  can  the  law  of 
human  brotherhood  take  root  and  flourish. 


ESSAY  X. 


IK  EXAMINATION  OF  BAUR  AND  STRAUSS  ON  THE 
CONVERSION  OF  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL.1 

When  we  speak  of  the  conversion  of  the  Apostle 
Paul,  we  mean  not  only  the  adoption  by  him  of  new 
religious  tenets  which  he  had  before  denied,  but  like¬ 
wise  the  moral  revolution  in  his  tempers  of  feeling  and 
principles  of  action.  We  refer  to  that  great  transfor¬ 
mation  which  rendered  him  “a  new  creature.”  He 
was  convinced  that  the  crucified  Jesus  of  Nazareth 
was  in  truth  the  Messiah;  but  his  conversion  also 
induced  and  included  a  new  moral  spirit  and  an  all- 
absorbing  consecration  to  the  cause  which  he  had 
previously  hated.  This  entire  change  Naturalism  at¬ 
tributes  exclusively  to  the  operation  of  physical  and 
psychological  laws. 

The  theory  propounded  by  Baur  in  his  Life  of  the 
Apostle  Paul  is  reiterated  with  some  variations  in  the 
last  Life  of  Jesus  by  Strauss.2  A  zealot  for  the  Phar- 

1  Lord  Lyttleton’s  little  work  on  the  Conversion  of  St.  Paul  is  a 
sound  argument.  It  is  largely  taken  up,  however,  with  proving  that 
Paul  was  no  impostor ;  and  the  remarks  to  show  that  he  was  not  an 
enthusiast,  though  judicious,  are  not  adapted  to  meet  the  more  recent 
skeptical  theories. 

2  Lebcn  Jesufilr  cl.  deutsche  Volk ,  p.  83. 


460 


THE  CONVERSION  OF  PAUL. 


isaic  type  of  religion,  Paul  was  irritated  and  alarmed 
at  the  progress  of  a  sect  which  held  the  ceremonies  of 
the  law  to  be  of  subordinate  consequence,  and  pre¬ 
tended  that  their  crucified  Master  was  the  promised 
King  of  Israel.  His  vehement  spirit  impelled  him  to 
active  measures  of  persecution.  Yet  the  nobler  feel¬ 
ings  of  his  nature  could  not  fail  to  be  touched  by  the 
demeanor  of  the  dying  Stephen ;  nor  could  he  wholly 
suppress  the  misgivings  which  the  unfaltering  tes¬ 
timony  of  the  disciples  to  the  resurrection  of  Jesus 
stirred  up  in  his  breast.  To  him,  a  Pharisee,  it  was 
no  impossible  event ;  and  if  it  were  true,  the  difficulty 
occasioned  by  the  ignominious  death  of  Christ  was 
removed  or  alleviated.  In  this  divided  state  of  feeling, 
when  the  will  was  maintaining  a  half-conscious  struggle 
with  the  better  impulses  which  rose  against  his  present 
determination  and  his  life-long  convictions,  and  his 
soul  was  agitated  with  contending  forces,  he  seemed  to 
himself  to  behold  in  a  vision  Jesus  rebuking  him  for 
the  conduct  for  which  he  had  begun  to  rebuke  himself. 
Perhaps  he  was  struck  by  lightning  while  on  an  errand 
of  persecution ;  and  this  circumstance,  together  with 
the  physical  effects  that  followed,  may  have  been  the 
immediate  occasion  of  the  imaginary  vision.  Strauss 
argues  that  an  infirmity  of  the  nervous  system  proba¬ 
bly  belonged  to  Paul  and  partly  accounts  for  remark¬ 
able  experiences  which  he  attributed  to  a  supernatural 
cause.  Baur,  especially  in  his  earlier  discussion  of  the 
subject,  dilates  upon  the  tendency  of  the  mind  to  pass 


THEORY  OF  STRAUSS  AND  BAUR. 


461 


from  one  extreme  to  the  opposite.  The  more  ardently 
and  thoroughly  a  man  enters  into  an  erroneous  system, 
the  more  likely  he  is,  we  are  told,  to  be  awakened  to 
the  falsehood  of  his  position.  In  proportion  to  the 
intensity  of  his  zeal  is  the  force  of  the  self-induced 
reaction. 

To  the  credit  of  Baur  it  must  be  added  that  after¬ 
wards  he  appears  to  have  become  dissatisfied  with  his 
own  solution.  In  the  last  edition  which  he  prepared, 
of  his  History  of  Christianity  in  the  First  Three  Cen¬ 
turies,  he  says  that  “  neither  psychological  nor  dialecti¬ 
cal  analysis  can  explore  the  mystery  of  the  act  in 
which  God  revealed  to  him  his  Son.”  He  even  says 
that  in  the  conversion  of  Paul,  “  in  his  sudden  trans¬ 
formation  from  the  most  vehement  adversary  into  the 
most  resolute  herald  of  Christianity,  we  can  see 
nothing  short  of  a  miracle  (wunder).” 1  And  the  same 
word  he  soon  after  applies  again  to  the  same  event. 
If  we  are  not  at  liberty  to  suppose  that  Baur  admits 
in  this  case  a  strictly  supernatural  agency — an  admis¬ 
sion  which  would  fundamentally  alter  his  whole  theo¬ 
logical  system — yet  it  is  something  to  find  him  willing 
to  use  the  obnoxious  word,  and  to  acknowledge  the 
impossibility  of  accounting  for  the  conversion  of  Paul. 
Baur  explains  that,  however  mysterious  the  transaction 
was,  the  turning-point  in  the  great  change  which  took 
place  in  the  mind  of  Paul  was  a  new  view  of  the  death 
of  Jesus.  He  came  to  understand  that  his  death 


1  Baur,  das  Christentlmm ,  etc.  (2  A.)  p.  45. 


462 


THE  CONVERSION  OF  PAUL. 


might  he  the  transition  to  a  more  exalted  life.  With 
this  new  view,  his  prejudice  against  a  crucified  Messiah 
vanished,  hut  with  it  his  Jewish  particularism  disap¬ 
peared  also ;  since  the  Christ  in  the  heavens  was 
raised  above  the  narrow  Jewish  conception  of  the 
Messiah,  and  their  exclusive,  carnal  theory  of  his  office 
and  relation  to  men  fell  to  the  ground.  What  portion 
of  truth  is  contained  in  these  interesting  suggestions 
we  shall  inquire  in  the  course  of  the  remarks  which 
follow. 

1.  It  is  important  to  notice  the  testimony  of  the 
authorities  and  to  compare  the  statements  of  Strauss 
and  Baur  with  that.  The  conversion  of  Paul  is  three 
times  circumstantially  related  in  the  book  of  Acts,  once 
by  Luke  himself  (c.  ix.),  and  twice  by  the  Apostle — 
the  first  time,  in  his  address  to  his  countrymen  at 
Jerusalem  (c.  xxii.),  and  again  in  his  speech  before 
Agrippa  (c.  xxvi.)  The  variations  in  these  three  nar¬ 
ratives  relate  to  slight  matters  of  detail,  and  are  unim¬ 
portant.  Yet  Strauss,  as  might  be  expected,  expends 
upon  them  his  trivial  criticism.  Paul  was  journeying 
towards  Damascus  for  the  purpose  of  seizing  Christian 
men  or  women  whom  he  might  find  there,  and  dragging 
them  to  Jerusalem.  Suddenly  a  bright  and  dazzling 
light  shone  down  upon  him  and  his  attendants.  The 
whole  company  were  filled  with  consternation.  But 
the  “trembling  and  astonished”  Paul  distinctly  heard 
the  words  that  were  addressed  to  him.  Then  followed 
his  blindness  and  his  conjunction  with  Ananias  at 


THE  TESTIMONY. 


463 


Damascus,  each  having  been  supernaturally  guided  to 
the  other.  The  skeptical  critics  do  not  scruple  to 
avail  themselves  of  any  circumstances  from  Luke  which 
fit  into  their  scheme.  Thus,  the  presence  of  Paul  at 
the  murder  of  Stephen  is  a  fact  of  which  Luke  is  the 
only  witness.  Strauss  even  supposes  an  effect  on  Paul 
from  disputations  with  Christians,  while  the  only  evi¬ 
dence  he  offers  that  such  disputation  took  place  is 
Acts  ix.  29,  where  Paul’s  disputing  with  the  Jews  after 
bis  conversion  is  alone  mentioned.  In  the  Acts  we 
have  the  testimony  of  one  who  had  been  for  a  time 
associated  with  Paul,  and  who  had  resorted  for  his 
information  (see  Luke  i.  5)  to  the  authentic  sources. 
But  we  cannot  here  enter  into  the  question  of  the 
credibility  of  Luke,  which,  as  we  believe,  has  been 
fully  vindicated  in  a  previous  Essay.  Happily  we  have 
the  testimony  of  the  Apostle  himself,  in  his  undoubted 
Epistles,  to  several  of  the  main  facts,  if  not  to  the 
special  circumstances,  of  his  conversion.  He  tells  us 
that  prior  to  that  event  he  had  “  beyond  measure  per¬ 
secuted  the  church  of  God  and  wasted  it”  (Gal.  i.  13). 
He  says  that  he  deserves  not  to  be  called  an  apostle, 
because  he  had  “  persecuted  the  church  of  God”  (1 
Cor.  xv.  9).  He  had  made  himself  famous  among  the 
churches  of  Judea  as  a  persecutor  (Gal.  i.  22,  23). 
He  had  outrun  the  Jews  about  him  in  his  fanatical 
zeal  (Gal.  i.  14.)  He  was  unquestionably  a  furious 
enemy  of  the  disciples  and  their  cause.  A  Pharisee, 
he  had  entered  with  all  his  heart  into  the  measures  of 


464 


THE  CONVERSION  OE  PAUL. 


his  party  for  exterminating  the  infant  Church.  More¬ 
over,  it  is  undeniable  from  his  own  statements  in  the 

j 

Epistles  that  his  conversion  was  sudden.  It  was  the 
result,  as  he  declares,  of  a  revelation  of  Jesus  Christ  to 
him.  And  when  he  connects  with  his  claim  to  be 
an  apostle  the  declaration  that  he  too  had  seen  Christ 
(1  Cor.  ix.  1),  it  is  rendered  in  a  high  degree  probable 
that  his  conversion  was  one  of  the  occasions  when  this 
occurred.  The  most  of  what  has  just  been  said,  the 
skeptical  critics  allow.  They  generally  concede  that 
Paul’s  conversion  resulted  from  a  vision  in  which  he 
supposed  himself  to  behold  Christ.  They  would  only 
resolve  this  vision  into  a  mere  subjective  impression, 
the  product  of  intense  mental  excitement. 

2.  The  skeptical  theory  assumes  without  evidence 
and  against  the  evidence,  that  the  mind  of  Paul  before 
his  conversion  was  deeply  exercised  with  misgivings 
as  to  the  rectitude  of  his  course.  The  naturalistic 
solution  requires  the  supposition  that  an  inward  tumult 
and  conflict  of  this  sort  prevailed  in  his  soul.  This 
hypothesis  not  only  lacks  support,  but  is  positively  ex¬ 
cluded  by  the  proofs.  It  is  founded  on  the  words  of 
Christ,  in  Acts  xxvi.  14 — the  same  passage  in  Acts  ix. 
5  is  interpolated — “  it  is  hard  for  thee  to  kick  against 
the  pricks.”  The  “  pricks  ”  are  the  goad  with  which 
the  ploughman  from  behind  urged  forward  the  oxen. 
The  phrase  was  a  proverbial  one,  and  is  thus  correctly 
explained  by  Dr.  Hackett :  “  the  meaning  is,  that  his 
opposition  to  the  cause  and  will  of  Christ  must  be  un- 


HIS  PREVIOUS  FEELING. 


465 


availing ;  the  continuance  of  it  would  only  bring 
injury  and  ruin  on  himself.”1  The  illustrative  pas¬ 
sages  from  Wetstein  establish  this  interpretation. 
There  is  no  implication  that  the  Apostle  was  struggling 
against  conscientious  impulses  :  the  opposite  rather  is 
indicated.  He  was  engaged  in  a  resolute,  pertinacious, 
but  ineffectual  endeavor  to  stop  the  progress  of  the 
Christian  cause.  When  we  turn  to  Paul’s  own  words 
we  find  satisfactory  evidence  that  he  was  disturbed  by 
no  misgivings,  but  was  wholly  absorbed  in  the  work 
of  persecution.  He  had  been,  he  says,  a  blasphemer 
and  persecutor,  but  found  mercy  because  he  “  did  it 
ignorantly,  in  unbelief.”2  He  says  again:  “I  verily 
thought  with  myself  that  I  ought  to  do  many  things 
contrary  to  the  name  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth.”  3  He  was 
sincere  and  perfectly  confident  that  he  was  striking  at 
a  heresy.  When  he  “made  havoc  of  the  church,” 
entering  into  private  houses  and  hurrying  to  prison 
women  as  well  as  men,  and  when  he  left  Jerusalem  to 
hunt  down  the  fugitive  disciples  in  other  cities,  he  had 
no  doubt  that  he  was  performing  an  acceptable  service 
to  God.  The  idea  that  he  rushed  into  extreme  meas¬ 
ures  of  cruelty  to  drown  the  rebuke  of  conscience  is 
pure  fancy.  Everything  shows  that  it  was  the  depth 
and  ardor  of  his  conviction  that  stimulated  him  to  out¬ 
do  his  Pharisaic  brethren  in  his  exertions  to  crush 

1  TIackett,  Commentary  on  the  Acts ,  p.  402.  See,  also,  Meyer  and 
De  Wette,  on  Acts  xxvi.  14. 

2  1  Tim.  i.  13.  3  Acts  xxvi.  9. 

30 


466 


THE  CONVERSION  OE  PAUL. 


the  new  heresy.  The  foundation  of  the  skeptical  solu¬ 
tion  of  the  problem  of  his  conversion  is  therefore  taken 
away. 

3.  Baur’s  conjectural  explanation  of  the  change  in 
the  religious  ideas  of  Paul  is  essentially  defective. 
The  earlier  notion  that  great  zeal  in  a  bad  cause  natu¬ 
rally  leads  the  subject  of  it  to  reverse  his  course,  will 
obtain  little  applause.  We  do  not  find  that  Torque- 
mada  was  converted  to  Protestantism  and  to  gentleness 
by  the  excess  of  his  own  cruelty  in  managing  the 
Spanish  inquisition.  Nor  will  it  avail  to  answer  that 
Paul  was  of  a  milder  and  more  generous  nature.  As 
Neander  has  remarked,  there  were  among  those  who 
beheld  the  burning  of  Huss  many  good  men  who  saw 
in  the  spectacle  nothing  but  the  just  punishment  of 
a  contumacious  and  mischievous  heretic.  There  is  no 
ground  for  supposing  that  the  death  of  Stephen  made 
a  different  impression  on  Paul. 

Baur  is  right  in  holding  that  the  conversion  of 
Paul  from  narrow  Pharisaism  to  the  broadest  Chris¬ 
tianity,  however  that  conversion  may  have  begun,  in¬ 
volved  a  process.  It  was  a  rational  change  of  princi¬ 
ples  and  views.  He  attained  to  a  new  conception  of 
the  nature  of  religion,  as  not  consisting  in  the  punctil¬ 
ious  observance  of  ceremonies,  nor  ultimately  in  any 
works  of  legal  obedience,  but  in  faith  which  worketh 
by  love.  Unquestionably  he  saw,  as  Baur  affirms,  a 
meaning  and  use  in  the  death  of  the  Messiah,  which 
rendered  that  event  no  longer  repugnant  but  grateful 


DEFECT  OF  BAUR’s  THEORY. 


467 


to  his  feelings.  The  proximate  cause  of  this  change, 
however,  was  the  awakening  of  a  sense  of  sin  and  a 
conviction  of  the  utter  inadequacy,  from  a  legal  point 
of  view,  of  that  obedience  which  he  had  been  able  to 
render.  His  feeling  respecting  the  death  of  Christ 
was  the  correlate  of  his  consciousness  of  sin  and  of  the 
helpless  condition  into  which  sin  had  brought  him. 
But  all  this  peculiar  experience,  as  far  as  we  are  able 
to  ascertain,  was  posterior  to  that  revelation  of  Jesus 
as  the  Messiah,  which  first  broke  up  his  feeling  of  self- 
satisfaction.  Reflection  upon  the  death  of  Jesus,  as 
long  as  Paul  was  imprisoned  in  his  Pharisaic  conception 
of  the  Messiah,  could  only  serve  to  confirm  him  in 
his  opposition  to  the  Christian  cause.  That  Jesus  had 
suffered  death  was  of  itself  sufficient  proof  that  his 
pretensions  were  false  and  his  followers  heretics  and 
apostates.  Not  until  Paul  was  convinced  of  the  reality 
of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus,  could  he  put  faith  in  his 
claims  and  become  reconciled  to  the  fact  of  his  death. 
This  is  allowed  by  Strauss  ;  and  now  the  question  is, 
how  Paul  became  convinced  that  Jesus  had  really  risen 
from  the  grave.  Strauss  conjectures  that  Paul  was 
overcome  by  the  testimony  of  the  disciples,  the  event 
to  which  they  bore  witness  being  one  which  he,  as  a 
Pharisee,  must  admit  to  be  possible.  But  Strauss 
ignores  the  essential  circumstance  that  the  whole  career 
of  Jesus,  terminating  as  it  did  in  the  crucifixion,  con¬ 
stituted  in  the  judgment  of  Paul  an  overwhelming 
presumption  against  the  probability  of  his  resurrection 


468 


THE  CONVERSION  OF  PAUL. 


and  against  the  credibility  of  his  disciples’  testimony. 
Moreover,  it  is  clear  from  the  Apostle’s  own  language 
that  it  was  not  the  weight  of  human  testimony,  in  the 
first  instance,  that  caused  him  to  believe,  but  a  super¬ 
natural  revelation,  or  something  which  he  supposed  to 
be  this.  There  is  not  a  shadow  of  proof  that  he  had 
begun  to  consider  with  himself  whether  the  testimony 
of  the  disciples  might  not  be  true.  On  the  contrary, 
he  thoroughly  disbelieved  it,  and,  inspired  with  the 
fanatical  hatred  of  an  inquisitor,  he  was  eager  to  exter¬ 
minate  the  new  sect.  The  naturalistic  criticism  in 
vain  casts  about  for  some  explanation  of  this  sudden, 
total  revolution  of  opinion  which  was  attended  by  a 
revolution  equally  signal  in  character  and  conduct. 

4.  There  is  no  proof  that  the  revelation  of  Christ, 
which  caused  the  conversion  of  Paul,  was  a  vision ;  and 
if  it  were,  there  is  no  explanation  of  it  save  on  the 
supposition  of  its  reality. 

In  a  vision,  through  a  powerful  impression  made 
on  the  mind  there  is  a  real  or  supposed  direct  percep¬ 
tion  of  objects  not  presented  to  the  senses.  Were  the 
event  which  changed  the  career  of  Paul  shown  to  be  a 
vision,  not  a  step  would  be  taken  towards  proving  it 
an  illusion.  For  the  skeptical  criticism  will  not  be 
permitted  to  assume  that  the  human  mind  cannot  be 
supernaturally  acted  upon,  and  that  the  visions  recorded 
in  the  Bible  are  the  product  of  an  excitement  having 
its  origin  exclusively  in  the  mind  itself.  It  has  been 
shown  already  that  this  criticism  has  wholly  failed  to 


HIS  SIGHT  OF  CHRIST  ACTUAL. 


469 


point  out  any  psychological  preparation  in  Paul  for  . 
such  a  deceitful  exercise  of  imagination.  A  vision, 
even  though  it  be  unreal,  cannot  spring  from  nothing. 
Little  is  gained,  therefore,  were  we  to  concede  that 
Paul’s  first  conviction  of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  was 
through  a  vision. 

But  even  this  concession  there  is  no  warrant  for 
making.  It  is  true  that  Paul  at  various  times  in  his 
life,  after  his  conversion,  had  visions,  as  he  himself 
relates.  But  it  is  also  true  that  he  makes  no  mention 
of  his  conversion  as  one  of  these,  since  the  vision  to 
which  he  refers  in  2  Cor.  xii.  1-4  occurred  fourteen 
years  prior  to  the  time  of  his  writing,  whereas  his  con¬ 
version  was  at  least  twenty  years  before  the  date  of 
the  Epistle.  Nor  is  there  reason  to  think  that  Paul 
could  not  distinguish  between  the  phenomena  of  a 
vision  and  an  affection  of  the  outward  senses.1  We 
find  this  distinction  explicitly  made  by  Luke  in  Acts 
xii.  9,  where  it  is  represented  that  Peter  who  had  fol¬ 
lowed  the  angel  out  of  the  prison  was  in  such  pertur¬ 
bation  of  mind  that  he  “wist  not  that  it  was  true 
which  was  done  by  the  angel,  but  thought  he  saw  a 
vision  ( oQaficc ).”  That  which  was  “true”  (dXfj&sg), 
or  actual,  is  expressly  discriminated  from  the  vision,  or 
subjective  impression.  Peter  knew  not  for  the  instant 
whether  his  liberation  had  been  supernaturally  repre¬ 
sented  to  his  mind  with  the  vividness  of  reality,  or 

1  For  valuable  remarks  on  this  topic,  see  Beyschlag’s  Article,  Die 
DeJcehrung  des  Apostels  Paulus ,  Studien  u.  Kritiken,  1864.  2. 


470 


THE  CONVERSION  OF  PAUL. 


whether  he  had  been  actually  set  free.  There  is  no 
warrant  for  supposing  that  the  strong  understanding  of 
Paul  did  not  make  the  same  distinction  between  vision 
and  external  fact.  And  when  he  says  that  he,  as  well 
as  the  other  apostles,  had  seen  Jesus,  and  connects  his 
apostleship  with  this  circumstance  (1  Cor.  ix.),  we 
property  'conclude  that  he  refers  to  something  besides 
a  purely  spiritual,  inward  perception,  or  such  a  percep¬ 
tion  as  a  vision  could  vouchsafe.  Peter  had  seen  Jesus 
in  his  bodily  presence,  and  Paul  puts  himself  in  this 
regard  on  a  level  with  Peter.1  And  the  objective  real¬ 
ity  of  this  transaction  on  the  road  to  Damascus  can  be 
disproved  only  by  discrediting  the  thrice-repeated  nar¬ 
rative  in  the  Acts. 

1  Beyschlag  shows  that  the  argument  of  Paul  for  the  resurrection 
of  believers  (1  Cor.  xv.),  which  is  founded  on  the  resurrection  of 
Jesus,  implies  a  perception  of  Christ  in  his  bodily  presence.  A  sense 
of  the  presence  of  Christ,  however  vivid  it  might  be,  which  did 
not  exhibit  him  in  the  body ,  could  not  constitute  a  basis  for  this 
argument. 


ESSAY  XI.. 


THE  NATURE  AND  FUNCTION  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN 

MIRACLES. 

There  are  those  who  find  it  hard  to  believe  in  a 
miracle,  because  the  word  is  associated  in  their  minds 
with  the  notion  of  a  capricious  act,  or  of  a  makeshift 
to  meet  an  unexpected  exigency.  They  conceive  of  a 
miracle  not  as  an  event  planned  and  fitting  into  an 
established  order,  but  as  done  in  obedience  to  a  sud¬ 
den  prompting,  as  a  kind  of  desperate  expedient  to 
prevent  the  consequences  of  a  previous  neglect  or  wTant 
of  forecast.  Such  an  act,  they  properly  feel,  cannot  be 
attributed  to  God.  Anxious  to  remove  the  prejudice 
just  described,  another  class  of  writers  set  up  defini¬ 
tions  of  a  miracle  which  destroy  the  distinction  be¬ 
tween  a  miracle  and  an  event  occurring  in  the  course 
of  Nature.  In  flying  from  one  error,  they  plunge  into 
another  lying  opposite.  The  mistake  in  the  conception 
which  they  would  correct  can  be  exposed  without 
confounding  a  miracle  with  a  natural  event,  or  strip¬ 
ping  the  former  of  the  distinguishing  attributes  that 
constitute  its  value  as  a  proof  of  divine  revelation.  A 
miracle  belongs  in  a  wholly  different  category  from 
natural  events  ;  yet  it  forms  no  element  of  discord,  is 


472 


THE  CHRISTIAN  MIRACLES. 


due  to  no  mistake  in  the  structure  of  the  world,  which 
requires'  to  be  remedied,  and  it  conspires  with  natural 
events  to  produce  harmony  in  the  whole  system. 

In  this  Essay  we  shall  make  the  attempt  to  define 
the  nature,  and  determine  the  appropriate  and  ap¬ 
pointed  use,  of  miracles.  Objections  and  errors  of 
recent  origin  call  for  a  fresh  discussion  of  this  impor¬ 
tant  subject.  And  if  the  path  of  our  inquiry  leads 
in  part  through  a  field  not  unfamiliar  ;  yet  more  pre¬ 
cise  conceptions  of  accepted  truth  are  sometimes  of 
hardlv  less  value  than  new  discoveries.  Eor  the  sake 
of  greater  clearness,  the  remarks  that  follow  will  be 
arranged  under  a  series  of  special  topics. 

WIIAT  IS  THE  IDEA  OF  A  MIRACLE? 

In  answering  this  question  we  reject  at  the  outset 
what  the  Germans  call  the  relative  nature  of  the  mira¬ 
cle,  or  the  notion  that  the  miraculous  quality  of  such 
an  event  is  merely  relative  to  human  feeling  and  ap¬ 
prehension.  This  definition  does  not  go  beyond  the 
etymology  of  the  term.  But  an  event  which  excites 
wonder  in  an  extraordinary  degree  is  not  thereby  con¬ 
stituted  a  miracle.  The  authority  of  Augustine  has 
often  been  pleaded  in  favor  of  this  faulty  definition. 
He  says  that  a  miracle  is  not  contrary  to  Nature,  but 
only  to  that  Nature  which  is  known  to  us.  The  or- 

V 

dinary  operations  of  Nature,  he  says,  were  they  un¬ 
familiar,  would  excite  not  less  amazement,  and  are  in 
reality  not  less  wonderful,  than  miracles.  But  in 


THE  IDEA  OE  A  MIRACLE. 


473 


Augustine’s  view,  which  results  from  his  anti-mani- 
chaean  philosophy,  all  the  operations  of  Nature  are 
immediate  exertions  of  the  Divine  will.  In  this  re¬ 
spect,  therefore,  he  can  place  miracles  in  the  same  cate¬ 
gory  with  the  every-day  operations  of  Nature,  while  he 
holds,  at  the  same  time,  that  the  miracle,  when  re¬ 
garded  from  another  point  of  view,  is  an  altogether 
exceptional  event.1  Spinoza,  identifying  God  with 
Nature,  is  consistent  in  denying  that  any  distinctive 
characteristic  of  an  objective  kind  belongs  to  a  miracle. 
This  term,  he  says,  has  respect  only  to  the  opinions 
entertained  by  men,  and  signifies  no  more  than  this, 
that  we,  or  at  all  events  they  who  narrate  the  occurrence 
in  question,  are  unable  to  explain  it  by  the  analogy  of 
any  other  event  familiar  to  experience.  On  Spinoza’s 
scheme,  a  miracle  in  the  proper  sense  is  a  complete 
absurdity.2  Schleiermacher,  never  wholly  able  to  es- 


1  Augustine,  De  Civ.  JDci ,  xxi.  8,  2.  Omnia  quippe  portenta  con¬ 
tra  Naturam  dicimus  esse  :  sed  non  sunt.  Quomodo  est  enim  contra 
Naturam,  quod  Dei  fit  voluntate,  cum  voluntas  tanti  utique  Condito- 
ris  conditse  rei  cujusque  natura  est?  The  will  of  God — the  voluntas 
of  the  Creator — is  Nature. 

2  Spinoza  devotes  c.  vi.  of  the  Tract.  Theolog-Polit.  to  the  subject 
of  miracles  ;  and  further  considers  the  subject  in  his  Letters — Epist. 
xxi.  and  xxiii.  He  says  (in  the  chapter  above  referred  to)  :  “  Ex  his 
— sequitur,  nomen  miraculi  non  nisi  respective  ad  hominum  opiniones 
posse  intelligi,  et  nihil  aliud  significare,  quam  opus,  cujus  causam 
naturalem  exemplo  alterius  rei  solitae  explicare  non  possumus,  vel 
saltern  ipse  non  potest,  qui  miraculum  scribit  aut  narrat.”  With 
Spinoza  leges  naturales  are  one  and  the  same  with  Dei  natura.  See 
the  context  of  the  passage. 


THE  CHRISTIAN  MIRACLES. 


cape  from  tlie  atmosphere  of  Pantheism,  comes  no 
nearer  the  true  idea,  when  he  says  that  any  event, 
even  the  most  natural,  may  be  styled  a  miracle,  pro¬ 
vided  the  religious  view  of  its  origin  is  spontaneously 
awakened  in  the  mind,  with  a  forgetfulness  of  the 
proximate  natural  causes.1  The  relative  notion  of  the 

1  Wonder  ist  nur  der  religiose  Name  fur  Begebenheit :  jede,  aucli 
die  allernaturlichste,  sobald  sie  sich  dazu  eignet,  dass  die  religiose 
Ansicbt  von  ihr  die  berrscliende  sein  kann,  ist  ein  Wunder.  Mir  ist 
alles  Wunder,  &c.  Reden  (6  A.)  s.  106.  See,  also,  N.  16,  s.  145. 
Schleiermacher’s  views  are  more  fully  set  forth  in  his  System  of 
Theology — the  Glaubenslehre — §  14  Zusatz,  §  34,  2,  3,  and  §  47. 
Though  not  rejecting  the  New  Testament  miracles,  as  historical  oc¬ 
currences,  he  still  professes  his  agreement  with  those  who  hold  “dass 
Gott  die  Wunder  auf  eine  uns  unbegreifliche  Art  in  der  Natur  selbst 
vorbereitet  gehabt.”  B.  I.  s.  240.  But  his  reasoning  to  prove  that  a 
divine  act  must  be  performed  through  the  system  of  Nature  and 
he  provided  for  in  that  system,  is  unsound  and  of  a  Pantheistic 
tendency. 

Schleiermacher  has  again  discussed  the  subject  of  miracles  in  his 
Lectures  upon  the  Life  of  Jesus,  published  lately  for  the  first  time. 
He  has  taken,  however,  no  new  positions.  In  his  endeavor  to  refer 
the  miracles  of  Jesus  to  energies  belonging  to  Nature,  he  is  perplexed 
by  the  control  which  Christ  exercised  over  inanimate  existence,  as  in 
stilling  the  tempest,  multiplying  the  loaves  of  bread,  and  raising  the 
dead.  (See  p.  223.)  Such  events,  he  perceives,  can  be  attributed  to  no 
mysterious  natural  energy,  which  is  supposed  to  have  enabled  him  to 
produce  extraordinary  effects — for  example,  in  healing — in  contact 
with  living  men.  Yet  the  miracles  of  the  class  mentioned  above  are 
historically  as  well  attested  as  any  of  the  rest.  This  fact  Schleier¬ 
macher  is  constrained  to  allow,  and  hence  finds  it  impossible  to  extri¬ 
cate  himself  from  the  difficulty  into  which  he  is  thrown,  and  which 
is  due  to  the  false  assumption  as  to  the  relative  nature  of  the  miracle, 
with  which  he  sets  out. 

A  view  homogeneous  with  that  of  Schleiermacher  has  been  at- 


475 


THE  IDEA  OF  A  MIRACLE. 

miracle  fails  to  separate  it  objectively  and  really  from  a 
natural  event — an  event  occurring  by  natural  law. 
Neither  the  degree  of  astonishment  with  which  events 
are  regarded,  nor  the  question  whether  they  can  be 
referred  to  a  previously  ascertained  law,  nor,  again, 
the  question  whether  they  are  attributed  spontaneously 
to  the  power  of  God,  forms  the  defining  characteristic 
of  a  miraculous  occurrence.  An  attentive  observation 
of  the  common  phenomena  of  Nature,  as  Augustine 
and  after  him  Luther  and  many  others  have  forcibly 
pointed  out,  may  well  kindle  wonder,  and  in  a  reli- 

tributed  to  Stanley  on  the  foundation  of  passages  in  his  work  on  the 
Old  Testament  History,  and  is  styled  the  providential  theory.  (See 
Frances  Power  Cobbe,  Broken  Lights ,  p.  31).  Events  recorded  in 
Scripture  are  said  to  be  neither  strictly  natural  nor  strictly  supernat¬ 
ural,  but  specially  providential.  They  are  such  as  to  suggest  impress¬ 
ively  the  agency  of  God,  and  are  related  to  each  other  as  parts  of  a 
great,  consistent  plan.  This  theory  seems  not  to  differ  essentially 
from  that  of  Schleiermacher.  Whether  it  be  justly  ascribed  to  Stan¬ 
ley’s  interpretation  of  the  Old  Testament  History,  we  do  not  assume 
to  determine. 

That  the  miracles  of  Christ  could  not  have  been  performed  by 
any  power  embosomed  in  Nature — as,  for  example,  by  an  energy 
belonging  naturally  to  preeminent  human  virtue — would  seem  to  be 
an  obvious  truth.  Yet  a  recent  writer  (Furness,  Veil  partly  Lifted , 
p.  216)  takes  this  position,  even  respecting  the  resurrection  of  Jesus. 
Aside  from  the  tremendous  difficulty  of  supposing  such  anomalous 
events,  as  the  miracles  recorded  in  the  Bible,  to  be  due  to  any  power 
latent  in  human  nature,  we  are  cut  off  from  that  supposition  by  the 
testimony  of  Christ  himself,  and  are  obliged  to  refer  them  to  a  super¬ 
natural  author.  The  broaching  of  such  a  theory  indicates  a  desire 
in  some,  which  amounts  to  a  determination,  to  get  rid  of  the  agency 
of  a  living,  personal  God. 


476 


THE  CHRISTIAN  MIRACLES. 


gious  mind  will  carry  up  the  thoughts  to  God.  But 
such  phenomena  are  not,  on*  this  account,  to  be 
deemed  miraculous.1 

In  defining  a  miracle  we  pledge  ourselves  to  no 
particular  theory  concerning  the  constitution  of  Nature. 
If  the  new  doctrine  of  the  persistency  of  force — the 
correlation  of  forces,  Mr.  Grote  calls  it — should  be 
established  ;  if  all  the  phenomena  of  matter  should  be 
found  to  be  due  to  varieties  of  motion — to  be  varied 
manifestations  of  one  essence  ;  our  present  discussion 
would  not  be  sensibly  affected.  If  occasionalism  be 
adopted  as  the  true  philosophy  ;  if  it  be  maintained 
that  the  operations  of  Nature  proceed  immediately 
from  the  volitions  of  God,  the  efficiency  of  second 
causes  being  denied,  or  even  that  the  phenomena  of 
Nature  are  indistinguishable  from  these  volitions,  what 
we  have  to  say,  would,  with  some  verbal  modifications, 
hold  good.  Bor  occasionalism  does  not  question  the 
reality  of  the  facts  of  Nature  ;  nor  does  it  scruple  to 
admit  the  sequences  of  Nature,  the  system  in  which 
these  facts  conjoin.  We  proceed,  however,  upon  the 
position  which  is  commonly  taken  by  theists,  that 
secondary  causes  are  real — that  matter  is  an  entity 
manifesting  forces,  though  requiring  the  direct  sus¬ 
tenance  and  co-working  of  the  power  of  God.  The 

1  For  good  remarks  on  the  relative  notion  of  a  miracle,  see  the 
valuable  Essay  of  Julius  Muller  on  the  subject  of  Miracles,  to  which 
we  shall  again  refer,  c.  iv.  Relativa  quam  vocant  miraculi  notio 
examinatur. 


THE  IDEA  OF  A  MIRACLE. 


477 


forces  resident  in  Nature  subsist  and  act,  but  they 
subsist  and  act,  not  without  the  Divine  preservation — 
the  concurs  us  Dei. 

A  miracle  is  an  event  which  the  forces  of  Nature, 
or  secondary  causes,  operating  thus  under  the  ordinary 
Divine  preservation,  are  incompetent  to  produce.1  Sec¬ 
ondary  causes  may  be  concerned  in  the  production  of  a 
miracle.  Dor  a  miracle  (except  in  the  case  of  creation 
dc  niltilo )  is  wrought  in  Nature,  or  in  the  realm  of 
second  causes  ;  but  these  are  insufficient  to  explain  it. 
It  is  an  event  which  only  the  intervention  of  the  First 
Cause  is  adequate  to  produce.  Beyond  the  constant 
upholding  of  Nature  in  the  normal  exercise  of  its 
powers,  there  has  been  an  interposition  of  God  to 
effect  that  which  otherwise  could  not  have  taken  place. 
Pascal  has  exactly  hit  the  true  nature  of  a  miracle, 
when  he  terms  it  a  result  exceeding  the  natural  force 
of  the  means  employed.  If  the  axe  floats  on  the 
water,  some  power  is  exerted  above  the  powers  of 
Nature.  They,  if  left  to  themselves,  would  necessarily 
carry  it  to  the  bottom. 

1  In  this  definition  we  use  the  term  Nature  as  a  synonym  for  the 
sum  of  second  causes,  or  the  creation  in  distinction  from  God.  If 
the  term  he  taken  less  comprehensively,  as  embracing  only  man  and 
the  material  universe,  or  that  portion  of  the  material  universe  of 
which  he  has  any  knowledge,  then  in  order  to  differentiate  a  miracle 
from  other  supernatural  events — events,  for  example,  which  it  may 
he  thought  possible  for  superhuman,  created  intelligences  to  bring 
to  pass — we  must  add  another  element  to  the  definition  and  explicitly 
connect  the  miracle  with  a  volition  of  God. 


478 


THE  CHRISTIAN  MIRACLES. 


is  A  MIRACLE  TO  BE  CONSIDERED  A  SUSPENSION  OR 
VIOLATION  OE  NATURAL  LAW  ? 

More  commonly  this  question  has  been  answered 
in  the  affirmative.  Yet  the  point  is  one  on  which 
theologians  are  not  yet  agreed.  For  example,  Dr.  N. 
W.  Taylor,  whose  discussion  of  the  general  subject  is 
marked  by  his  wonted  acuteness,  styles  a  miracle  a 
“  deviation  ”  from  some  law  of  Nature,  and  appears, 
also,  to  sanction  the  statement  that  miracles  may 
involve  a  violation  of  natural  law.1  On  the  contrary, 
Dr.  Julius  Muller  considers  the  statement  improper 
and  unfounded.2 

The  difference  is  really  due  to  the  different  mode 
in  which  the  phrase,  “law  of  Nature,”  is  defined  by 
the  parties  respectively.  Dr.  Taylor  means  by  a  law 
of  Nature  “  that  established  course,  or  order,  of  things 
or  events,  which  depends  solely  on  the  constitution, 
properties,  or  nature  of  any  created  thing,  and  which 
admits  of  no  deviation  by  any  created  pownr.”  The 
stated  connection  between  a  given  event  and  a  certain 
set  of  physical  antecedents,  which  that  event  is  ob¬ 
served  invariably  to  follow,  is  taken  as  the  idea  of  a 
law  of  Nature.  Under  this  conception,  a  miracle  is 
properly  said  to  involve  a  counteraction,  or  suspension, 
or  violation  of  natural  law ;  for  in  the  case  of  the 
miracle  the  presence  of  a  given  set  of  physical  antece¬ 
dents  is  not  followed  by  the  usual  event.  When  a 

1  See  Dr.  Taylor’s  Moral  Government ,  Yol.  II.  pp.  388,  390, 

3  Muller’s  Essay  on  Miracles ,  Caput  III. 


MIRACLE  AND  NATURAL  LAW. 


479 


leper  is  healed,  as  the  effect  of  a  word  uttered  by  a 
human  voice,  the  connection  usually  observed  to  sub¬ 
sist  between  physical  antecedent  and  consequent,  is 
dissolved.  If  the  law  of  Nature  be  this  stated  connec¬ 
tion,  then  of  course  the  natural  law  is  suspended  or 
violated. 

But  there  is  another  and  more  exact  meaning  to 
be  given  to  natural  law,  which  does  not  involve  this 
consequence.  What  is  natural  law  but  the  method  in 
which  a  force  or  energy  is  observed  to  operate  ?  The 
laws  of  Nature  are  the  method  of  the  operation  of  the 
forces  which  inhere  in  Nature.  Such  laws  are  not  a 
norm  for  an  energy  that  is  outside  of  Nature,  or  is 
imported  from  without.  We  need  not  affirm — we  are 
not  authorized  to  affirm — that  a  miracle  involves  a 
change  in  the  constitution  of  matter  or  mind,  or  in  the 
law  under  which  they  act.  And  if  it  did  involve  such 
change— so  that  matter,  for  example,  were  transformed 
into  something  different  from  matter — even  then  the 
miraculous  event  would  be  no  violation  of  the  laws  of 
matter ,  since  matter,  by  the  supposition,  has  ceased  to 
exist,  and  has  been  displaced  by  a  substance  endowed 
with  diverse  properties.  Suppose  the  axe  to  float 
miraculously  upon  the  water.  There  is  here  no  viola¬ 
tion  of  the  laws  of  Nature.  Bor  the  extraordinary 
event  is  not  due  to  the  abnormal  action  of  the  energies 
that  belong  either  to  the  water  or  to  the  iron  ;  but  is 
owing  rather  to  the  introduction  of  a  new  and  extrinsic 
cause  which  operates  according  to  a  law  of  its  own. 


480 


THE  CHRISTIAN  MIRACLES. 


There  is  no  more  violation  of  natural  law  than  if  the 
axe  were  upheld  upon  the  water  by  the  human  hand. 
The  effect  which  a  given  antecedent,  or  sum  of  ante¬ 
cedents,  would  otherwise  produee,  may  be  counter¬ 
acted  by  the  presence  of  other  forces  which  are  also 
natural.  This  is  done  whenever  a  stone  is  thrown  into 
the  air,  or  water  raised  by  a  pump,  or  lightning  di¬ 
verted  from  a  building  by  an  iron  rod.  In  these  cases 
there  is  not,  as  we  conceive,  any  violation  of  natural 
laws.  Tor  the  law  of  gravitation  is  not  properly  stated 
when  it  is  made  to  involve  the  bringing  to  the  earth  of 
a  stone  in  those  circumstances  under  which  we  observe 
the  stone  to  rise ;  and  the  same  is  true  of  the  other 
examples  of  a  supposed  infringement  of  natural  law. 
So  the  resurrection  to  life  of  a  man  who  has  once  died 
is  an  effect  which  tne  natural  causes  connected  with 
the  event  could  not  have  produced,  but,  acting  by 
themselves,  must  have  excluded.  But  this  change  of 
event  is  not  to  be  ascribed  to  an  alteration  of  the  norm 
under  which  they  act,  but  wholly  to  the  introduction 
in  connection  with  them  of  a  new  and  supernatural 
cause.  The  effect  which  the  physical  antecedents,  if 
left  to  themselves ,  would  have  produced,  is  set  aside — 
in  consequence,  however,  of  an  added  ahtecedent,  the 
Divine  power  supernaturally  exerted. 

We  conclude,  therefore,  that  a  miracle,  strictly 
speaking,  is  neither  a  suspension  nor  a  violation  of 
natural  laws,  but  rather  an  event  which  would  he  this, 
were  it  not  for  the  fact  that  with  the  physical  ante- 


MIRACLES  AND  EXPERIENCE. 


481 


cedents  there  has  been  associated  a  supernatural 
agency. 

The  English  writer  who  deserves  credit  for  clearly 
refuting  the  idea  that  a  miracle  suspends  or  violates 
the  lawrs  of  Nature,  is  the  Scottish  philosopher,  Brown.1 
However  he  may  err  in  unwarrantably  extending  the 
sense  of  the  term  Nature  (a  point  on  which  Dr.  Tay¬ 
lor  animadverts),  and  however  defective  may  be  his 
general  theory  of  causation,  his  observations  on  the 
particular  topic  before  us  appear  to  be  conclusive. 

IS  A  MIRACLE  CONTRARY  TO  EXPERIENCE  ? 

Here,  likewise,  attention  is  required  to  the  mean¬ 
ing  of  terms.  If  experience  be  a  synonym  for  the 
course  of  things  as  deduced  from  observation,  then  a 
miracle  is  contrary  to  experience.  If  we  are  told  that 
a  leper  is  cured  by  a  word  from  human  lips,  we  are 
told  of  an  event  which  is  contrary  to  experience — that 
is,  inconsistent  with  what  has  heretofore  been  observed 
to  follow  upon  the  same  natural  antecedents.  If  wre 
submit  the  case  to  experiment  and  reiterate  the  trial, 
using  the  most  scientific  caution  in  applying  the  test, 
no  such  event  is  observed  to  follow. 

But  if  the  opposition  to  experience  that  is  predi¬ 
cated  of  a  miracle  be  understood  to  involve  the  idea 
that  in  asserting  a  miracle  we  ascribe  to  the  same  set 

of  causes  an  event  different  from  that  which  they  have 

*/ 

1  Brown’s  Inquiry  into  the  Relations  of  Gauss  and  Effect.  Ap¬ 
pendix,  INote  E, 

31 


482 


THE  CHRISTIAN  MIRACLES. 


always  been  observed  to  produce,  then  a  miracle  is  not 
contrary  to  experience.  For  a  miracle,  we  repeat, 
implies  no  contradiction  to  the  maxim  that  the  same 
effect  is  to  be  expected  to  follow  the  same  causes.  A 
miracle  is,  by  the  supposition,  an  event  resulting  from 
the  association  of  a  new  cause  with  a  given  set  of 
physical  antecedents.  It  is  true  that  (save  in  the 
cases,  the  reality  of  which  is  under  discussion)  we  have 
no  experience  of  this  association  of  the  supernatural 
agency  with  the  physical  antecedents.  But  this  last 
fact  is  better  expressed  by  the  statement  that  a  miracle 
is  above  or  beyond  experience — transcends  experience 
- — than  by  the  statement  that  it  clashes  with  experi¬ 
ence.  That  a  miracle  should  occur  when  the  power 
of  God  is  specially  exerted  in  connection  with  physical 
agencies,  does  not  clash  with  experience. 

THE  POSSIBILITY  OE  MIRACLES. 

The  possibility  of  a  miracle  is  the  next  topic  to  be 
considered.  Is  it  necessary  to  argue  this  point  before 
a  believer  in  God  ?  Is  omnijjotence  incompetent  to 
produce  events  that  outreach  the  capacity  of  created 
Nature?  Has  He  who  gave  existence  to  second 
causes,  exhausted  His  resources  of  power  in  the  act 
of  producing  and  sustaining  them  ?  Was  not  the  pro¬ 
duction  of  these  causes  itself  a  stupendous  miracle  ? 

There  is  nothing  in  our  knowledge  of  the  constitu¬ 
tion  of  matter,  and  of  the  internal  processes  of  Nature, 
of  which  only  the  phenomena  are  presented  to  our 


THE  POSSIBILITY  OF  MIRACLES. 


483 


observation,  to  afford  the  shadow  of  a  support  to  the 
presumptuous  proposition  that  events  like  the  recorded 
miracles  of  the  Bible  are  inherently  impossible  to  be 
effected.  How  in  the  regular  course  of  nature  the 
handful  of  grain  multiplies  itself  in  the  harvest  which 
springs  from  it,  is  an  insoluble  problem.  It  is  an 
inexplicable  fact  which,  after  the  closest  observation 
of  the  successive  phenomena  attending  the  change,  we 
still  find  to  be  a  mystery.  That  the  five  loaves  should 
be  multiplied  by  an  agency  both  different  from  that  of 
Nature  and  superior,  so  as  to  furnish  food  for  five 
thousand,  is  another  mystery,  but  a  fact  which  none 
but  the  atheist  can  consistently  declare  impossible.  A 
man  who  would  otherwise  sink  in  death  is  restored  to 
health  by  a  medicinal  agent  administered  by  a  physi¬ 
cian’s  hand.  We  can  only  point  out  the  visible  ante¬ 
cedents  of  the  effect.  How  they  do  their  work  in  the 
hidden  laboratory  of  Nature,  we  cannot  go  far  in  ex¬ 
plaining.  We  cannot  pierce  through  the  veil  that 
hides  the  interior  process  from  our  eyes.  In  this 
respect,  we  believe  where  we  cannot  see  or  explain. 
But  if  it  be  asserted  that  the  invalid  can  be  restored  in 
a  briefer  time  and  by  the  exertion  of  a  power  different 
from  any  remedial  agent  in  the  natural  world — say,  by 
the  direct  volition  of  God — who  is  bold  enough  to 
affirm,  who  has  the  slightest  ground  for  affirming,  that 
the  thing  is  impossible  ? 

That  a  miracle  is  possible  is  a  proposition  com¬ 
mended  to  credence  by  the  survey  of  the  actual  phe- 


484 


THE  CHRISTIAN  MIRACLES. 


nomena  of  Nature  in  its  various  kingdoms.  We  see 
that  higher  forces  so  far  control  the  action  of  lower 
that  the  latter  cease  to  produce  the  effects  which  would 
result  from  their  exclusive  activity.  Mechanical  forces 
are  subordinated  to  chemical  attraction.  Inorganic 
nature  is  subjected  to  the  operation  of  vital  forces. 
Vegetable  and  animal  existences  are  endued  with 
powers  which  are,  so  to  speak,  superior  to  the  forces 
of  unorganized  matter.  The  force  of  gravitation,  for 
example,  gives  way,  or  is  apparently  overborne,  by  a 
heterogeneous  and  superior  agency.  If  we  could  sup¬ 
pose  ourselves  divested  of  all  knowledge  of  organic 
Nature,  we  should  then  have  the  same  right,  no  less 
and  no  more,  to  deny,  on  account  of  the  force  of  gravi¬ 
tation,  the  possibility  of  the  upward  growth  of  a  tree, 
as  the  skeptic  has  now  to  deny  the  possibility  of  a 
miracle.  The  former  event  would  be  not  less  foreign 
to  experience,  not  less  unprovided  for  in  the  existences 
which  we  had  beheld,  and  in  the  causes  whose  opera¬ 
tion  we  had  observed,  than  is  the  instantaneous  cure 
of  blindness  by  a  volition,  or  the  raising  of  a  dead 
man  to  life.  Nature  is  the  spectacle  of  realm  above 
realm,  where  the  subordinate  order  is  taken  up  and 
embraced  within  the  superior.  Ascending  from  one 
grade  to  another,  we  meet  with  new  and  diverse  phe¬ 
nomena,  and  with  a  seeming  reversal  of  the  laws  which 
operate  on  the  plane  below.  This  change  is  due,  how¬ 
ever,  to  the  incoming  and  modifying  agency  of  a  new 
and  heterogeneous  class  of  causes. 


THE  POSSIBILITY  OE  MIRACLES. 


485 


Still  more  suggestive  is  the  relation  of  the  intelli¬ 
gent  will  of  man  to  the  forces  of  the  unintelligent 
creation.  Here,  within  the  domain  of  Nature,  effects 
are  produced  analogous  to  the  miracle.  The  will  in 
relation  to  the  matter  with  which  it  is  connected  and 
over  which  it  has  power,  is  a  heterogeneous  and  super¬ 
natural  cause.  The  changes  in  matter  which  it  pro¬ 
duces  take  place,  to  be  sure,  in  agreement  with  the 
laws  of  matter,  yet  they  are  changes  and  effects  which 
originated  not  in  the  sphere  of  matter,  but  in  a  motor 
outside  and  above  material  forces.  A  gesture  of  the 
hand  is  the  result  of  a  train  of  causes — as  the  action 
of  the  brain,  the  nerve,  the  muscle — a  train,  however, 
which  begins  in  a  volition.  It  is  true,  there  is  no 
analogy,  as  far  as  we  can  judge,  between  the  influence 
of  the  will  upon  existences  exterior  to  it,  and  the  exer¬ 
tion  of  creative  power.  The  will,  in  its  action  on  mat¬ 
ter,  can  modify  that  which  already  existed,  but  cannot 
call  into  being  what  is  not.  Here  the  limits  of  human 
power  are  reached.  A  miracle  that  involves  creative 
power  has  no  parallel,  as  far  as  we  can  judge,  with  any 
possible  exertion  of  man's  voluntary  agency.  But  with 
this  exception,  the  control  of  the  human  will  over 
matter  bears  a  striking  resemblance  to  the  more  potent 
operation  of  the  Divine  will,  and  exhibits  impressively 
the  possibility  of  such  a  miraculous  operation. 


486 


THE  CHRISTIAN  MIRACLES. 


THE  PROBABILITY  OE  MIRACLES  :  THE  PRESUMPTION 

ADVERSE  TO  THE  OCCURRENCE  OE  MIRACLES. 

That  a  miraculous  event,  looked  at  by  itself,  is 
improbable,  needs  no  proof.  The  incredulity  which 
the  report  of  such  an  event  awakens  in  an  educated 
mind,  implies  an  anterior  presumption  opposed  to  its 
occurrence.  There  are  some  defenders  of  Christianity 
who  are  inclined  to  put  a  miracle,  in  regard  to  the 
proof  required  to  establish  it,  on  the  same  footing  with 
an  ordinary  event.  They  take,  as  we  conceive,  an 
untenable  position,  and  one  that  is  likely  to  harm  more 
than  it  helps  their  cause.  It  is  freely  admitted  that  a 
presumption  lies  against  the  occurrence  of  a  miracle. 
But  before  we  can  measure  the  strength  of  this  pre¬ 
sumptive  disbelief,  we  must  inquire  into  the  sources 
of  it. 

This  presumption  is  founded  in  our  belief  in  the 
uniformity  of  Nature.  But  what  is  the  nature  and 
ground  of  this  belief  ? 

It  is  not,  as  some  philosophers  have  held,  an  in¬ 
stinctive  faith  that  things  will  continue  to  be  as  they 
are — that  the  future  will  reproduce  the  present.1  Bor 
our  belief  in  the  uniformity  of  Nature  points  back¬ 
ward,  as  well  as  forward.  It  relates  to  what  has  oc¬ 
curred  in  the  past,  not  less  than  to  what  is  expected  to 
occur  hereafter.  Moreover,  the  supposed  axiom  is 

1  Just  objections  to  tliis  form  of  statement  are  presented  b}7  J.  S. 
Mill,  in  liis  Logic . 


THE  PROBABILITY  OF  MIRACLES. 


487 


inexact  in  leaving  room  for  tire  assumption  of  a  kind 
of  sameness  in  the  recurrence  of  physical  phenomena, 
which  experience  disproves.  For  example,  the  climate 
of  our  latitude  has  not  always  been,  what  it  is  now  ; 
nor  is  it  now  what  it  will  be  hereafter.  The  globe  and 
the  whole  physical  universe,  by  the  mere  operation  of 
physical  causes,  have  undergone  vast  and  various 
changes.  New  and  before  unobserved  phenomena 
have  sprung  into  being.  The  saying,  that  things  will 
be  what  they  are  or  have  been,  describes  no  original 
belief  of  the  mind,  or  is,  at  best,  a  vague  and  inaccu¬ 
rate  statement  of  any  such  belief. 

The  presumptive  disbelief  of  the  educated  mind  in 
miracles  is  founded  in  our  conviction  that  there  is  a 
system  of  Nature.  Scientific  investigation  has  inspired 
a  belief  in  the  sway  of  general  laws,  as  opposed  to 
preternatural  intervention.  The  progress  of  science, 
from  Thales  downward,  has  largely  consisted  in  4he 
elimination  of  supposed  divine  interferences  and  in 
the  disclosure  of  an  established  order.  One  depart¬ 
ment  of  Nature  after  another  has  been  brought  within 
the  circle  of  ascertained  law.  Phenomena,  seemingly 
capricious,  have  been  found  to  recur  with  a  regularity 
not  less  unvarying  than  the  succession  of  day  and 
night.  Events  that  were  once  thought  to  be  wholly 
owing  to  a  preternatural  cause  can  be  predicted  in 
advance  by  a  process  of  mathematics.  Not  two  cen¬ 
turies  ago,  leading  ministers  of  New  England  consid¬ 
ered  a  comet  to  be  a  special  messenger  from  God  to 


488 


THE  CHRISTIAN  MIRACLES. 


forewarn  men  of  punitive  calamities  which  were  im¬ 
pending  over  them.1 

The  conviction  which  is  excited  by  the  results  of 
scientific  investigation,  relative  to  the  unvarying  con¬ 
trol  of  natural  law,  is  not  without  support  from  another 
quarter.  Such  an  arrangement,  generally  speaking, 
best  harmonizes  with  our  ideas  of  the  wisdom  and 
majesty  of  God.  We  should  expect  that  He  would 
stamp  regularity  upon  the  operations  of  Nature. 
Moreover,  the  uniformity  of  Nature — the  exemption, 
in  general,  of  Nature  from  supernatural  intervention — 
is  a  most  benevolent  arrangement.  The  fixed  course 
of  Nature  is  a  vast  and  indispensable  blessing  to  man. 
It  is  essential  that  we  should  be  able  to  count  upon 
the  future  ;  to  anticipate  the  rising  of  the  sun  at  a 
given  hour ;  to  foresee  that  the  bread  which  we  take 
for  the  nourishment  of  life  will  not  turn  out  to  be 
poisonous  ;  to  be  certain  that  when  vitality  is  gone 
there  is  no  hope  of  revoking  the  principle  of  life. 
Were  it  not  for  the  order  of  Nature,  all  human  calcula¬ 
tions  would  be  baffled,  human  judgments  left  without 

1  See,  for  example,  Dr.  Increase  Mather’s  “  Ko^ro-ypacpLa,  or  a 
Discourse  concerning  Comets,  wherein  the  Mature  of  Blazing  Stars 
is  enquired  into,”  &c.,  &c.,  with  “  two  Sermons  occasioned  by  the 
late  Blazing  Stars.”  Boston:  1683.  We  have  quoted  but  a  small 
fraction  of  the  title.  In  the  Discourses  are  stated  “the  horrible 
massacres,  fires,  plagues,  tempests,  hurricanes,  wars,  and  other  judg¬ 
ments  ”  which  have  followed  the  appearance  of  Comets  in  all  ages. 
It  is  an  amusing  instance  of  the  fallacious  confounding  of  the  propter 
hoc  with  the  post  hoc. 


PRESUMPTION  AGAINST  MIRACLES. 


489 


a  foundation  to  rest  upon,  and  infinite  disorder  and 
confusion  everywhere  prevail.  The  ends  of  a  wise 
benevolence  are  best  met  by  marking  out  the  course 
of  Nature  and  leaving  it  to  move  on  the  appointed 
track. 

Such  is  the  force  of  these  considerations  that  we 
unhesitatingly  reject  the  testimony  by  which  most 
alleged  miracles  are  supported.  In  reading  early 
historians,  like  Herodotus,  or  mediaeval  chroniclers, 
like  Gregory  of  Tours,  or  in  listening  to  the  modern 
necromancers,  whenever  we  perceive,  and  in  propor¬ 
tion  as  we  perceive,  that  an  event  which  they  report 
involves  a  miracle,  we  instantaneously  disbelieve  the 
narrative.  Such  disbelief  is  felt  to  be  the  dictate  of 
reason. 

And  this  aversion  of  the  mind  to  give  credence  to 
a  miracle  is  augmented  by  the  necessity  under  which 
the  historical  student  is  placed,  of  rejecting  so  vast  an 
amount  of  miraculous  narrative.  It  may  be  said,  to 
be  sure,  that  the  evidence  from  testimony  is  defective  ; 
for  such  is  the  truth  in  numberless  instances  of  pre¬ 
tended  miracle.  Yet,  in  some  cases,  were  the  events 
which  are  too  much  for  our  faith,  unmiraculous,  we 
should  deem  the  testimony  on  which  they  rest  to  be 
sufficient.  In  these  cases  we  deny  credence  simply 
and  solely  on  the  ground  of  a  rational  reluctance  to 
believe  in  miracles.  Tor  example,  we  credit  Herodo¬ 
tus  in  a  thousand  places,  where  the  proofs — -apart  from 
the  character  of  the  events  reported — are  no  greater 


490 


THE  CHRISTIAN  MIRACLES. 


than  those  which  he  brings  forward  in  relating  the 
miraculous. 

We  fully  concede,  then,  that  there  is  an  antecedent, 
rational  presumption  against  the  truth  of  a  narrative 
involving  miracle,  a  presumption  resting  proximately 
upon  the  experience  of  the  uniformity  of  Nature,  and 
ultimately  upon  our  conviction  of  the  wisdom  and 
desirableness  of  such  an  arrangement ;  and  acquiring 
additional  force  from  the  knowledge,  which  history  and 
observation  afford,  of  the  credulitv  of  mankind  and  the 
prevalence  of  superstition. 

HOW  MAY  THE  PRESUMPTION  ADVERSE  TO  MIRACLES  BE 

REMOVED  ? 

The  uniformity  of  Nature,  in  the  sense  of  excluding 
supernatural  intervention,  is  not  an  intuitive  truth — a 
truth  of  reason.  That  like  causes  will  produce  like 
effects  is  indeed — as  far  as  the  physical  world  is  con¬ 
cerned,  for  we  leave  out  of  consideration  the  will — an 
axiom  of  reason.  But  the  uniformity  of  Nature  in¬ 
volves  another  proposition,  namely,  that  the  sum  of 
forces  operating  in  Nature  remains  the  same — with  no 
introduction  of  supernatural  power.  And  our  belief  in 
the  uniformity  of  Nature  has  no  greater  strength  than 
belongs  to  the  presumption  that  supernatural  interposi¬ 
tion  will  not  occur. 

But  every  theist  knows  that  supernatural  interposi¬ 
tion  has  occurred  in  the  past ;  that  all  things  which 
he  beholds  owe  their  existence  to  such  an  exertion  of 


THE  PRESUMPTION  REMOVED. 


491 


the  Divine  will.  Bor  he  traces  them  all  to  an  act  of 
creation. 

Moreover,  science  affords  a  kind  of  historical  proof 
that  acts  of  creation  have  occurred.  The  origination 
of  all  the  types  or  species  of  living  beings  found  on  the 
earth,  requires  the  supposition  of  a  creative  act,  since 
Geology  points  back  to  a  time  when  no  germs  of  ani¬ 
mated  being  existed  on  the  globe.  If  the  old  doctrine 
of  the  original  distinctness  of  existing  species  be  still 
held,  which  no  facts  have  thus  far  disproved,  we  are 
led  to  the  necessary  assumption  of  a  series  of  creative 
acts.  The  uniformity  of  Nature  is  thus  seen  to  be  no 
absolute  truth. 

But  for  what  end  does  material  Nature  exist  ? 
Surely  not  for  its  own  sake.  The  end  for  which  Na¬ 
ture  exists  must  be  sought  outside  of  Nature  itself. 
Nature  is  only  a  part  of  a  more  comprehensive  system. 
Nature  is  an  instrument,  not  an  end.  The  moral 
administration  of  God  is  superior  and  all-comprehen¬ 
sive.  The  fixed  order  of  Nature  is  appointed  to  pro¬ 
mote  the  ends  of  wisdom  and  goodness.  The  same 
motive  which  dictated  the  establishment  of  this  order 
may  prescribe  a  deviation  from  it ;  pi  rather  may  have 
originally  determined  that  the  natural  order  should 
at  certain  points  give  way  to  supernatural  mani¬ 
festation. 

That  is  to  say,  if  the  object  to  be  secured  is  suffi¬ 
ciently  commanding,  or,  in  other  words,  if  the  benefit 
to  result  outweighs  all  the  evils  which  may  be  sup- 


I 


492  THE  CHRISTIAN  MIRACLES. 

posed  to  attend  a  Divine  intervention,  the  antecedent 
presumption  against  the  miracle  is  set  aside  and  over¬ 
borne. 

Supposing  an  end  worthy  of  the  intervention  of 
God,  a  miracle  is  perfectly  consistent  with  the  immu¬ 
table  character  of  the  Divine  administration.  This  lies 
in  the  unity  of  the  end.  The  same  end  is  pursued, 
but  the  means  of  attaining  it  are  varied.  Now  ITe 
makes  use  of  natural  law,  and  now  of  special  interven¬ 
tion.  There  is  no  disturbance  of  the  grand  harmony 
that  pervades  the  Divine  administration.  The  acts  of 
Divine  Providence,  both  natural  and  miraculous,  form 
together  one  consistent  whole.  A  commander,  who 
commonly  issues  his  orders  through  subordinates,  does 
not  interfere  with  the  ends  he  has  in  view,  if  he 
chooses,  now  and  then,  to  ride  over  the  field  and  per¬ 
sonally  convey  his  commands.  He  is  guilty  of  no 
fickleness,  if  he  alter  the  disposition  of  his  forces  to 
suit  a  new  set  of  circumstances.  This  alteration  may 
even  have  been  embraced  in  his  foresight.  Nor  is  the 
Ruler  of  the  country  inconsistent  with  himself,  when 
he  augments,  or  diminishes,  or  wholly  disbands,  the 
military  force  which  he  has  himself  organized.  Por 
this  force  does  not  exist  for  its  own  sake.  It  was 
created  for  a  special  end  outside  of  itself,  and  is 
moulded  with  sole  reference  to  the  benefit  sought.  A 
miracle  is  not  a  prodigy,  a  mere  wonder  ( ztQag ), 
fulfilling  no  moral  end,  a  disturbance  of  the  natural 
order,  carrying  with  it  no  advantage.  But  a  miracle 


IMMUTABILITY  OF  GOD. 


493 


is'  also  a  sign  (piy.itiov),  signifying  something,  fulfill¬ 
ing  an  idea,  and  serving  an  end.1 

Hence,  a  miracle  implies  no  afterthought  on  the 
part  of  God — as  if  he  resorted  to  a  measure  which  He 
had  not  originally  purposed.  In  the  plan  of  this 
world,  miracles  not  less  than  natural  events  had  their 
appointed  place.  The  Divine  Being  as  truly  deter- 
mined  to  exert  supernatural  power  at  the  points  where 
miracles  occur,  as  to  act  elsewhere  through  general 
laws.  In  short,  miracles  are  fully  accordant  with  the 
laws  of  the  Universe,  or  of  the  universal  system  which 
includes  God.  A  departure,  in  one  sense  of  the  terms, 
from  the  law  of  Nature,  they  are  yet  harmonious  with, 
and  required  by,  the  laws  of  the  Universe.  The 
higher  law  prescribes  their  occurrence.2 

1  Of  the  three  terms  used  in  the  New  Testament  to  designate  a 
miracle,  ripas  corresponds  to  miraculum  and  denotes  the  subjective 
effect  on  the  mind  ;  oppeiov  denotes  the  significance  of  the  event ;  and 
Swazis  the  supernatural  energies  to  which  it  must  be  due. 

2  It  is  a  relief  to  turn  from  the  vagueness  of  many  modern  writers 
to  the  greater  precision  of  the  Schoolmen.  Thomas  Aquinas  ( Sum - 
ma ,  P.  I.  Qucest.  105,  Art.  6)  handles  the  question  whether  God  can 
do  anything  praeter  ordinem  rebus  indutum.  He  explains  that  every 
order  is  dependent  upon  a  cause,  and  that  one  order  may  be  subject 
to  another  that  is  higher  and  more  comprehensive :  as  the  family 
which  is  dependent  on  the  father  is  embraced  in  the  city,  which,  in 
turn,  is  included  in  the  kingdom.  A  miracle  is  no  violation  of  the 
order  of  things,  as  dependent  upon  the  First  Cause. 

In  another  passage  (P.  I.  Quoest.  110,  Art.  4),  Thomas  discusses 
the  question  utrum  angeli  p>ossint  facere  miraeula.  He  admits  that 
superhuman  creatures  can  bring  to  pass  events  which  are  miracles 
quoad  nos ;  that  is,  events  which  surpass  the  power  of  any  created 
causes  with  which  we  are  acquainted.  But  he  responds  to  the  ques- 


494  THE  CHRISTIAN  MIRACLES. 

It  will  be  objected  that  we  are  unqualified  to  say 
when  a  moral  emergency  that  calls  for  a  miracle  is 
constituted.  To  a  certain  extent,  this  may  be  granted. 
We  cannot  take  into  view  the  entire  Divine  system. 
We  may  be  disposed  to  set  up  a  claim  for  the  inter¬ 
vention  of  God  in  cases  where  a  wiser  being  would  be 
of  another  mind.  This,  however,  may  fairly  be  de¬ 
manded  of  every  theist,  that  as  he  believes  in  an  inter¬ 
vention  of  God  at  the  successive  epochs  of  creation,  so 
he  shall  be  prepared  to  expect  a  similar  intervention  at 
epochs  equally  momentous  in  the  new  spiritual  crea¬ 
tion,  or  the  redemption  of  mankind  from  their  bondage 
to  evil.  The  antecedent  presumption  against  the 
occurrence  of  miracles  may  exist  in  different  degrees 
of  strength.  It  may,  in  a  given  set  of  circumstances, 
be  greatly  weakened  without  wholly  disappearing. 
But  a  crisis  can  be  conceived  to  exist,  an  exigency  can 
be  conceived  to  arise,  where  this  presumption  wholly 
vanishes  and  even  yields  to  an  expectation  of  the  oppo¬ 
site  character.  The  need  of  Revelation,  and  of  mira¬ 
cles  to  verify  and  give  effect  to  Revelation,  constitutes 
an  occasion  justifying  the  Divine  intervention. 

THE  FALLACY  OF  HUMe’s  ARGUMENT. 

The  preceding  remarks  suggest  the  proper  answei 
to  the  reasoning  of  Hume  against  the  possibility  of 


tion  negatively,  because  a  miracle,  properly  speaking,  is  praeter  ordi- 
nem  totius  naturae  creatae — something,  therefore,  which  only  God 
can  do. 


FALLACY  OF  HUME’s  ARGUMENT. 


495 


proving  a  miracle.  He  ignores  the  fact  of  a  supernat¬ 
ural  moral  government  over  the  world  of  Nature  and 
of  men.  Our  belief  both  in  the  constancy  of  Nature 
and  in  human  testimony,  says  Hume,  is  founded  on 
experience.  In  regard  to  the  former  point,  this  expe¬ 
rience  is  uniform  (since  the  cases  of  supposed  miracle, 
being  under  discussion,  are  not  to  be  assumed  as 
exceptions).  In  respect  to  the  credibility  of  testimony, 
however,  if  we  suppose  apparently  credible  testimony 
to  be  piled  never  so  high,  nothing  more  is  required  for 
believing  it  to  be  falsely  given  than  to  suppose  a  viola¬ 
tion  of  natural  law  ;  that  is,  of  the  laws  connected  with 
the  giving  of  credible  testimony.  But  if  we  accept  the 
testimony,  and  believe  the  fact  it  alleges^  we  are 
obliged  to  assume  the  same  thing ;  namely,  the  viola¬ 
tion  of  natural  law.  In  other  words,  we  are  required 
by  the  reporters  of  a  miraculous  event  to  accept  one 
miracle  in  order  to  avoid  another !  We  have  stated 
the  gist  of  Hume’s  argument.  The  fallacy  does  not 
consist  in  the  postulate  that  a  miracle  is  contrary  to 
experience  ;  for  there  is  a  logical  propriety  in  this  pro¬ 
visional  assumption.  But  the  fallacy  lies  in  the 
assumption  that  a  miracle  is  just  as  likely  to  occur  in 
the  one  place  as  in  thie  other ;  that  we  may  as  ration¬ 
ally  expect  a  miracle  to  be  wrought  in  the  matter  of 
testimony,  whereby  the  laws  of  evidence  are  miracu¬ 
lously  converted  into  a  vehicle  for  deceiving  and  mis¬ 
leading  mankind,  as  to  suppose  a  miracle  in  the  physi¬ 
cal  world,  like  the  healing  of  the  blind.  Hume’s 


496 


THE  CHRISTIAN  MIRACLES. 


argument  is  valid  only  on  tlie  hypothesis  that  God  is 
as  ready  to  exert  supernatural  power  to  make  truth¬ 
ful  men  falsify,  as  to  perform  the  miracles  of  the  Gos¬ 
pel.  Introduce  the  fact  of  a  personal  God,  a  moral 
Government,  and  a  wise  and  benevolent  end  to  be  sub¬ 
served  through  miraculous  interposition,  and  Hume’s 
reasoning  is  emptied  of  all  its  force.1 

t 

THE  SPECIAL  FUNCTION  OR  USE  OE  MIRACLES. 

This  is  a  topic  deserving  of  more  full  examination. 
Why  is  Revelation  attended  with  miracles  ?  What 
particular  end  is  subserved  by  supernatural  manifesta- 

1  Most  of  tlie  opponents  of  Hume  have  failed  to  overthrow  his 
reasoning.  Assuming  that  the  uniformity  of  Nature  is  ascertained 
from  testimony,  they  have  claimed  that  testimony  does  not  prove 
this  uniformity  to  be  unvarying,  and  that  Hume,  in  taking  the  oppo¬ 
site  position,  begs  the  question  in  dispute.  If  they  are  correct,  there 
is  no  greater  a  priori  improbability  of  a  miracle  than  of  a  natural 
event ;  and  the  same  amount  of  proof  which  satisfies  us  that  a  man 
has  sunk  in  the  water,  suffices  to  prove  that  he  has  walked  on  the 
water  or  subdued  the  billows  with  a  word.  If  they  are  correct,  an 
event  inexplicable  by  natural  laws  is  as  credible  as  the  every-day 
phenomena  of  Nature.  They  forget  that  the  uniformity  of  Nature  is 
a  legitimate  generalization  from  experience.  It  is  not  a  bare  record 
of  facts  and  observations,  but  an  authorized  (though  not  absolute) 
generalization  on  the  basis  of  them.  It  is  true  that  J.  S.  Mill  and  philos¬ 
ophers  of  the  Positivist  type,  who  exclude  an  a  priori  element  from 
induction,  have  no  good  warrant  for  any  generalization — any  dictum 
more  comprehensive  than  the  cases  actually  observed.  Hume,  to  be 
sure,  is  logically  involved  by  his  philosophical  theories  in  the  same 
embarrassment.  But  on  a  sound  philosophy,  we  are  obliged  to  admit 
a  presumption  against  miracles,  which  requires  to  be  removed. 


THE  FUNCTION  OF  MIRACLES. 


497 


tion  in  connection  with  Christianity  ?  These  are  the 
questions  to  he  considered. 

It  has  been  sometimes  thought  that  the  miracles 
of  Christ  were  to  prove  His  Divinity.  But  this,  in  our 
judgment,  is  an  error.  The  miracles  of  Christ  do  not 
differ  in  kind  from  those  which  are  attributed  to  the 
prophets  of  the  Old  Testament.  By  the  prophets  the 
sick  were  healed  and  the  dead  revived.  Nothing  in 
the  quality  of  the  works  wrought  by  Christ,  therefore, 
can  authorize  us  to  put  this  interpretation  upon  them. 
If  we  look  at  the  teaching  of  the  New  Testament,  we 
discover  that  neither  Christ  nor  the  apostles  attach 
this  peculiar  significance  to  His  miraculous  works.  On 
the  contrary,  they  are  explicitly  said  to  be  performed 
by  the  Bather,  or  by  the  Bather  through  Him.  They 
are  said  to  be  effected  by  a  power  which,  though  it 
permanently  abide  in  Him,  wras  yet  given  Him  of 
God.  They  are  sometimes  preceded  by  the  offering 
of  prayer  to  the  Bather.  They  are  declared  to  be  a 
manifestation  of  the  power  and  majesty  of  the  Bather. 
And  in  keeping  with  these  representations  is  the 
circumstance  that  no  miraculous  works  proceeded 
from  Jesus  prior  to  the  epoch  of  His  baptism  and 
entrance  on  Blis  public  ministry.  The  Divinity  of 
Jesus  is  a  truth  which  rests  upon  His  testimony  and 
that  of  the  apostles,  and  not  upon  the  fact  that  He  per¬ 
formed  works  exceeding  human  power.1 

1  The  scriptural  proof  that  the  miracles  of  Christ  were  not  to 
prove  his  Divinity,  is  presented  more  in  detail  in  the  Essay  of  Muller. 

32 


498 


THE  CHRISTIAN  MIRACLES. 


The  old  view  that  miracles  are  to  authenticate  the 
divine  mission  of  a  religious  teacher,  is  the  correct 
view.  They  are  a  proof  which  God  condescends  to 
afford,  that  the  person  by  whom  they  are  wrought  is 
clothed  with  an  authority  to  speak  in  His  name.  This 
being  their  special  office,  Christ  never  performed 
miracles  for  the  promotion  of  His  own  personal  com¬ 
fort.  That  miracles  are  in  this  way  a  testimony  of 
God,  is  declared  by  the  Saviour.  “  The  works  which 
the  Father  hath  given  me  to  finish,  the  same  works 
that  I  clo,  bear  witness  of  me,  that  the  Fattier  hath 
sent  me.”  1  “  4  If  thou  be  the  Christ,  tell  us  plainly/ 

Jesus  answered  them,  £  I  told  you  and  ye  believed  not ; 
the  works  that  I  do  in  my  Father’s  name,  they  bear 
witness  of  me.’  ”  2  We  need  not  cite  the  numerous 
passages  in  which  the  miracles  are  set  forth  as  the 
proper  signs  of  Messiahship.  An  emphatic  example 
is  the  response  of  Jesus  to  the  messengers  who  came 
from  John  the  Baptist  with  the  question  whether  He 
was  indeed  the  Christ.  The  miracles  of  Christ,  then, 

See  Mark  vii.  34;  John  xi.  41,  42,  v.  36,  ix.  25,  33,  xiv.  10,  xi.  40  ; 
cf.  Luke  ix.  43.  See  also  Acts  ii.  22,  cf.  Acts  x.  38.  There  is  only 
one  passage  (John  x.  11)  which  could  he  thought  to  suggest  a  differ¬ 
ent  view.  But  the  86£a  which  Christ  manifested  forth  by  the  mira¬ 
cle  at  Cana  was  the  messianic  glory,  implying,  indeed,  in  the  view  of 
John,  divinity  (see  John  i.  14)  ;  yet  not  identically  the  86£a  for  which 
Christ  prays  in  John  xvii.  5.  Hence  John  x.  11  cannot  be  consid¬ 
ered  as  inconsistent  with  the  general  tenor  of  the  New  Testament 
representations  on  this  subject,  which  is  seen  in  the  passages  above 
cited,  many  of  which  are  from  John. 

1  John  v.  36.  2  John  x.  24,  25. 


IMPORTANCE  OP  MIRACLES. 


499 


are  the  testimony  of  God  to  His  supernatural,  divine 
mission  ;  and  the  miracles  of  the  apostles  have  a  sim¬ 
ilar  design  and  import.1 

Is  this  end  unimportant  ?  Surely,  if  the  Christian 
religion  is  important,  it  is  essential  that  its  authorita¬ 
tive  character  should  be  established.  Whether  the 
doctrine  is  of  God,  or  Christ  speaks  of  himself ; 
whether  the  Gospel  is  only  one  more  experiment  in 


1  Mtiller  has  attempted,  successfully,  as  we  think,  to  show  that 
the  miracles  of  Christ  were  also  intended  to  he  symbolical  of  His  spir¬ 
itual  agency,  and  of  relations  in  His  spiritual  kingdom.  The  miracles 
of  healing  symbolized,  and  commended  to  faith,  His  ability  to  cure 
the  soul  of  its  disorders.  The  feeding  of  the  multitude  set  forth  the 
possibility,  through  Him,  of  accomplishing  great  things  in  His  cause 
by  apparently  insignificant  means.  His  resurrection  from  the  dead  is 
a  standing  symbol,  in  the  writings  of  Paul,  for  the  spiritual  awaken¬ 
ing  from  the  death  of  sin. 

That  the  miracles  of  Christ,  besides  the  principal  end  of  authen¬ 
ticating  his  mission,  had  other  collateral  motives  and  ends,  is  not 
questioned.  They  undoubtedly  serve  to  impress  the  mind  with  the 
fact  of  the  'personality  of  God.  They  are  thus  an  antidote  to  Pan¬ 
theistic  sentiment,  as  well  as  to  the  Deism  which  puts  God  far  off. 
They  are,  also,  a  natural  expression  of  the  compassionate  feelings  of 
Christ  towards  all  in  distress.  Says  Chastel,  in  his  excellent  Etudes 
Hisioriques ,  upon  the  Influence  of  Charity  in  the  early  Church,  p. 
30,  “  Cost  parce  que  Jesus  aimait  que ,  tout  en  publiant  la  nouvelle 
du  royaume  des  Cieux,  il  guerissait,  dit  l’historien,  les  maladies  et  les 
langueurs  du  peuple  (Matt.  iv.  23,  24).  Cette  meme  compassion  qui 
le  saisissait  a  la  vue  de  la  foule  errante  et  sans  guide  (Matt.  ix.  36), 
l’attendrissait  aussi  sur  d’autres  souffrances ;  il  allait  de  lieu  en  lieu 
faisant  du  bien  et  laissant  partout  des  marques  de  son  inepuisable 
sympathie.”  This  is  true  ;  yet  there  was  another,  which  was,  also, 
the  principal  motive — the  attestation  of  His  messianic  mission  and 
office. 


500 


THE  CHRISTIAN  MIRACLES. 


speculation,  one  more  effort  of  erring  reason  to  solve 
the  problems  of  life,  is  surely  a  question  of  capital 
importance.  Every  sober  and  practical  mind  desires, 
first  of  all,  to  know  if  the  Gospel  can  be  depended 
upon.  The  authority  and  certainty  of  the  Christian 
system  are  of  inestimable  value  ;  and  these  are  guaran¬ 
teed  bv  miracles. 

Just  at  this  point  we  encounter  one  of  the  most 
popular  objections  to  the  attestation  of  a  Revelation  by 
miracles.  A  miracle,  it  is  urged,  is  an  exertion  of 
power.  But  how  can  a  display  of  power  operate  to 
convince  the  reason  or  quicken  the  sense  of  obligation  ? 
The  binding  force  of  a  moral  precept  lies  in  its  intrin¬ 
sic  character.  Obedience  on  any  other  ground  is 
worthless.  Now  can  a  miracle  add  to  the  obligation 
to  follow  that  which  is  right  ?  or  create  a  sense  of 
obligation  which  the  law  itself  fails  to  excite  ?  Is  not 
a  miracle  in  such  a  case  something  heterogeneous, 
impertinent  ?  The  objection  is  equivalent  to  the 
discarding  of  the  principle  of  authority  in  religion 
altogether.  We  answer,  that  as  far  as  Christianity  is 
preceptive,  the  force  of  authority  is  a  distinct  motive 
superadded  to  the  perceived  rectitude  of  the  law,  and 
is  both  a  legitimate  and  effective  motive — as  truly  as 
parental  authority,  including  the  whole  influence  of  a 
parent’s  will  and  a  parent’s  love,  is  a  proper  influence 
in  the  heart  of  a  child.  As  far  as  Christianity  is  a 
testimony  to  truth  which  the  human  mind  cannot  dis¬ 
cern  or  cannot  to  its  own  full  satisfaction  prove,  every- 


THE  FUNCTION  OF  MIRACLES. 


501 


tiling  depends  on  having  this  testimony  fully  estab¬ 
lished.  And,  in  general,  there  is  a  fallacy  in  the  sup¬ 
position  that  religious  truth  must  be  either  discerned 
intuitively  and  with  perfect  clearness,,  or  be  cast  aside 
as  of  no  use.  Reason  may  be  educated  up  to  the 
understanding  and  appreciation  of  what  was  once 
comparatively  dark  and  unmeaning.  The  outward 
reception  of  that  which  is  commended  by  authority 
may  be  followed  by  insight.  This  is  that  elevation  of 
reason  to  the  level  of  revealed  truth  which  Lord  Bacon 
declares  that  we  are  bound  to  accomplish.  We  recog¬ 
nize  the  principle  of  authority  whenever  we  devote 
ourselves  to  the  study  of  a  scientific  treatise  which  we 
know  to  be  true,  but  have  not  yet  mastered.  Every 
boy  who  engages  in  the  study  of  Euclid,  does  this 
with  the  prior  conviction  that  his  text-book  contains 
truth,  but  truth  which  he  can  appropriate  to  himself 
not  without  strenuous  exertion.  The  Gospel  system, 
when  attested  by  miracles,  makes  an  analogous  claim 
upon  the  soul.  It  calls  for  obedience,  consecration  ;  it 
rewards  these  with  apprehension,  insight.  The  creden¬ 
tials  which  attest  it  put  the  mind  in  the  right  attitude 
for  inwardly  receiving  its  lofty  and  inspiring  lessons. 

While  it  is  the  office  of  the  Christian  miracles  to 
verify  the  supernatural,  divine  mission  of  Christ,  we 
are  far  from  considering  that  they  are  the  exclusive,  or 
even  the  foremost,  proof  of  this  great  truth  ;  or  even 
that,  by  themselves,  they  are  adequate  to  the  produc¬ 
tion  of  an  inward  faith.  But  of  their  relation  to  the 


502 


THE  CHRISTIAN  MIRACLES. 


other  sources  of  Christian  evidence,  we  shall  speak 
more  fully  under  another  head. 

A  recollection  of  the  end  for  which  miracles  are 
wrought,  will  expose  the  fallacy  of  the  current  skep¬ 
tical  objection  that  miracles  would  imply  a  flaw  in  the 
constitution  of  material  Nature,  which  needs  to  be 
repaired  through  a  special  intervention.  The  need  of 
miracles  is  not  founded  on  the  existence  of  any  defect 
in  Nature.  The  system  of  Nature  is  good  and  is 
worthy  of  God.  It  is  fitted,  in  itself  considered,  to 
disclose  the  attributes  of  the  Creator  and  to  call  forth 
feelings  of  adoration  in  the  human  mind.  The  defect 
is  not  in  Nature.  But  the  mind  of  man  is  darkened 
so  that  this  primal  revelation  is  obscurely  discerned ; 
his  character,  moreover,  is  corrupted  beyond  the  power 
of  self-recovery,  in  consequence  of  his  apostasy  from 
God.  Now,  if  God  shall  mercifully  approach  with  new 
light  and  new  help,  why  shall  He  not  verify  to  man 
the  fact  of  His  presence,  by  supernatural  manifestations 
of  His  power  and  goodness  ?  In  this  case,  Nature 
is  used  as  an  instrument  for  an  ulterior  moral  end. 
The  miracle  is  not  to  remedy  an  imperfection  in  Na¬ 
ture,  but  is,  like  the  Revelation  which  it  serves  to 
attest,  a  product  of  the  condescension  of  God.  He 
condesce?ids  to  address  evidence  to  the  senses,  or  to  the 
understanding  through  the  senses,  in  order  to  open  a 
way  for  the  conveyance  of  the  highest  spiritual  blessing 
to  mankind.  Material  Nature,  be  it  remembered, 


MIRACLES  AND  MORAL  EVIDENCE. 


508 


does  not  include  the  end  of  its  existence  in  itself.  It 
is  a  subordinate' member  of  a  vaster  system,  and  has 
only  an  instrumental  value. 

Of  a  piece  with  the  objection  just  noticed,  is  the 
vague  representation  that  something  sacred  is  violated 
by  a  miracle.  Hume  styled  a  miracle  a  transgression 
of  natural  law — skilfully  availing  himself  of  a  word 
which  usually  denotes  the  infringement  of  a  moral  law, 
and  so  carries  with  it  an  association  of  guilt.1  Several 
recent  writers  have  more  directly  propounded  a  like 
notion.  Such  views  may  be  pertinent  under  a  scheme 
of  sentimental  Pantheism  where  Nature  is  deified. 
Only  he  who  holds,  with  Spinoza,  that  Nature  is  God, 
can  deem  a  miracle  repugnant  to  the  attributes  of  God. 
When  the  attempt  is  made  to  connect  such  notions 
with  any  higher  theory  of  the  universe,  they  deserve 
no  respect,  but  rather  contempt.  As  if  it  were  derog¬ 
atory  to  the  Divine  Being  to  save  a  human  life  by 
any  other  than  physical  agencies,  even  when  the  prin¬ 
cipal  end  to  be  attained  is  the  verification  of  a  heaven- 
given  remedy  for  the  soul  and  for  the  disorders  which 
sin  has  brought  into  it ! 

THE  RELATION  OF  MIRACLES  TO  THE  MORAL  PROOFS  OF 

CHRISTIANITY. 

The  question  has  often  been  discussed  whether  the 
strongest  proof  of  the  divine  origin  of  Christianity  is 
found  in  its  doctrine  or  its  miracles.  Some  have  gone 
1  Hume’s  Essays,  Yol.  II.  Appendix,  K. 


504 


THE  CHRISTIAN  MIRACLES. 


so  far  as  to  say  that  the  doctrine  proves  the  miracles, 
not  the  miracles  the  doctrine.  The  truth  on  the  subject 
has  been  more  properly  set  forth  in  the  aphorism  of 
Pascal :  “  Doctrines  must  be  judged  by  miracles ; 
miracles  must  be  judged  by  doctrines/' 

It  is  plain  that  a  doctrine  which  the  unperverted 
conscience  pronounces  immoral  or  inconsistent  with 
the  perfections  of  God,  cannot  be  received  on  the 
ground  of  alleged  or  supposed  miracles  attending  it. 
This  principle  is  declared  in  the  Bible  itself,  in  a  mem¬ 
orable  injunction  given  to  the  Israelites.1  We  must 
conclude,  to  be  sure,  that  all  wonders  which  the 
teacher  of  such  doctrine  performs,  are  “  lying  won¬ 
ders  ;  ”  that  they  are  either  the  product  of  jugglery  or 
are  wrought  by  supernatural  evil  beings  whose  force 
surpasses  that  of  men,  and  who  are,  therefore,  able  to 
counterfeit  the  works  of  Divine  power. 

In  accordance  with  the  tendency  of  this  principle, 
is  the  reply  of  Jesus  to  the  charge  that  his  miracles 
were  wrought  by  the  power  of  Satan.  He  does  not 
deny  that  works,  surpassing  the  power  of  men,  may 
be  done  through  the  aid  of  devils  ;  but  he  responds  to 
the  charge  bv  a  moral  consideration.  An  evil  being 
would  not  work  against  himself  and  exert  power  against 
his  own  minions. 

So  much  is  clear,  then,  that  a  doctrine  must  be 
negatively  unobjectionable  on  the  score  of  morality  or 
of  moral  tendency,  in  order  to  challenge  our  faith, 

1  Deuteronomy  xiii.  1-4. 

V 


MIRACLES  AND  MORAL  EVIDENCE. 


505 


whatever  wonderful  works  may  attend  the  annunciation 

of  it. 

But  a  still  more  positive  and  important  place  be¬ 
longs  to  doctrine  in  the  evidence  for  the  divine  origin 
of  Christianity.  The  foregoing  discussion  has  evinced 
that  in  order  to  prove  miracles,  the  anterior  presump¬ 
tion  adverse  to  their  occurrence  must  be  set  aside. 
The  necessity  of  Revelation  and  of  a  method  of  salva¬ 
tion  which  man  is  unable  to  originate,  partially  pre¬ 
pares  the  mind  to  expect  miracles.  But  the  contents 
of  the  professed  Revelation  are  of  not  less  moment  in 
their  bearing  on  this  anterior  expectation.  The  more 
excellent  the  doctrine,  the  more  it  seems  to  surpass  the 
capacity  of  the  unaided  human  faculties,  the  more  it 
appears  adapted  to  the  necessities  of  our  nature,  in 
fine,  the  more  worthy  it  is  to  have  God  for  its  author, 
so  much  the  more  credibility  is  given  to  the  miracles 
which,  it  is  claimed,  have  accompanied  it.  The  doc¬ 
trine  and  the  miracles  are  two  mutually  supporting 
species  of  evidence.  The  more  the  mind  is  struck 
with  the  divine  excellence  of  the  doctrine,  the  more 
likely  does  it  seem  that  this  doctrine  should  be  attend¬ 
ed  with  miracles.  If  the  doctrine  is  noble  and  worthy 
and  sufficient,  wre  naturally  look  for  miracles,  and  only 
require  that  they  shall  be  recommended  to  belief  by 
faithful  testimony. 

In  these  remarks  we  have  compared  the  doctrine 
with  the  miracles,  as  sources  of  proof.  The  moral 
proofs  of  Christianity,  however,  comprehend  much 


506 


THE  CHRISTIAN  MIRACLES. 


more  than  what  is  understood  by  Christian  doctrine. 
As  affecting  the  presumption  relative  to  the  occurrence 
of  miracles,  we  must  take  into  view  the  character  of 
Jesus,  the  entire  spirit  and  plan  of  his  life,  all  the 
circumstances  connected  with  the  planting  of  Christian¬ 
ity  in  the  world.  It  is  unwarranted  and  unwise  to 
isolate  one  element  of  Christianity,  as  the  miracles,  or 
the  doctrine,  from  the  other  elements  which  are  con¬ 
nected  with  it,  and  form,  as  it  were,  one  vital  whole. 
Christ  and  Christianity,  as  they  are  presented  in  the 
New  Testament  Scriptures,  stand  out  as  one  complex 
phenomenon,  which  we  are  called  upon  to  explain. 
Nothing  can  be  appreciated  by  itself,  but  everything 
must  be  looked  at  in  its  organic  relation.  The  moral 
evidence  of  the  supernatural  origin  of  Christianity  in¬ 
cludes  the  teaching  of  Christ  and  the  Christian  system 
of  doctrine,  but  it  embraces  much  more — much  that 
is  inseparably  associated  with  the  doctrine. 

Farther  still,  we  are  required  to  consider  Christian¬ 
ity  in  the  light  of  a  mighty  historic  movement,  begin¬ 
ning  in  the  remote  past,  extending  in  a  continuous 
progress  through  many  ages,  culminating  in  the  advent 
and  life  of  Christ,  and  in  the  establishment  of  his 
Church,  but  flowing  onward  in  its  effects,  through  an 
ever- widening  channel,  down  to  the  present  day.  We 
have  to  contemplate  the  striking  peculiarity  of  this 
great  historic  movement,  which  embraces  the  unfold¬ 
ing,  through  successive  stages,  or  epochs,  of  a  religion 
distinct  in  its  spirit  as  well  as  in  its  renovating  power 


MIRACLES  AND  MORAL  EVIDENCE. 


507 


from  all  other  religions  known  among  men.  And  we 

O  o 

have  to  connect  with  this  view  a  survey  of  its  subse¬ 
quent  diffusion  and  leavening  influence  in  human  so¬ 
ciety.  Comparing  this  religion  with  the  native  charac¬ 
teristics  of  the  people  among  whom  it  appeared,  and 
from  whose  hands  the  priceless  treasure  was  at  length 
delivered  to  mankind,  we  are  to  ask  ourselves  if  this 
religion,  so  pure  and  salutary,  so  enduring  and  influen¬ 
tial,  so  strong  as  to  survive  temporary  eclipse  and 
withstand  through  a  long  succession  of  ages,  before  the 
full  light  appeared,  an  adversary  as  powerful  as  human 
barbarism  and  corruption,  can  be  the  product  of  man’s 
invention.  And  whatever  reason  there  is  for  rejecting 
this  supposition  as  irrational,  is  so  much  argument  for 
the  Christian  miracles. 

It  deserves  remark  that  miracles  appear  especially 
at  the  signal  epochs  in  the  progress  of  the  gradually 
developing  system  of  religion.  This  circumstance  has 
been  pointed  out  by  Christian  apologists.1  In  connec¬ 
tion  with  Moses,  who  marks  an  era  in  the  communica¬ 
tion  of  the  true  religion ;  then,  after  a  long  interval,  in 
connection  with  the  prophets,  who  introduce  an  era 
not  less  peculiar  and  momentous,  and  then,  after  a 
long  suspension  of  miraculous  manifestation,  in  con¬ 
junction  with  the  final  and  crowning  epoch  of  Revela- 
tion,  with  the  ministry  of  Christ  and  the  founding  of 
the  Church,  the  supernatural  is  seen  to  break  into  the 
course  of  history.  There  is  an  impressive  analogy  be- 


See  Dr.  A.  P.  Peabody’s  Christianity ,  the  Religion  of  Nature. 


508 


THE  CHRISTIAN  MIRACLES. 


tween  the  spiritual  creation  or  renewal  of  humanity, 
and  the  physical  creation,  where  successive  eras  are 
inaugurated  by  the  exertion  of  supernatural  agency  in 
the  introduction  of  new  species,  and  after  each  epoch 
history  is  remanded,  as  it  were,  to  its  natural  course 
in  pursuance  of  an  established  order.  Miracle  would 
seem  to  be  the  natural  expression  and  verification  of 
an  opening  era  in  the  spiritual  enlightenment  of  man¬ 
kind,  when  new  forces  are  introduced  by  the  great 
Author  of  light  and  life,  and  a  new  development 
sets  in. 

In  this  place  may  be  noticed  a  criticism  which  is 
frequently  heard,  in  these  days,  from  the  side  of  disbe¬ 
lief.  Miracles,  it  is  said,  are  put  forward  as  the 
evidences  of  Revelation,  but  miracles  are  the  very 
thing  which  require  to  be  proved.  “  Miracles,”  it  is 
triumphantly  asserted,  “  instead  of  affording  satisfactory 
proof  of  anything,  are  now  usually  found  in  the  dock 
instead  of  the  witness-box  of  the  court  of  criticism.”  1 
To  this  we  reply,  that  when  the  testimony  of  a  witness 
is  such  as  to  conclude  the  case,  and  that  witness  is 
impeached,  of  course  the  main  effort  is  turned  in  the 
direction  of  establishing  his  credibility.  When  a  mes¬ 
senger  brings  a  communication  of  a  momentous  nature, 
the  character  of  his  credentials  becomes  a  question 
of  vast  consequence  and  draws  to  itself  a  proportionate 
degree  of  attention.  Are  these  credentials  genuine, 
the  contents  of  his  message  will  command  respect. 

1  Mackay,  The  Tubingen  School ,  &c.,  p.  56. 


MIRACLES  AND  MORAL  EVIDENCE. 


509 


Arc  the  credentials  fabricated,  his  message  is  devoid 
of  authority.  To  scrutinize  the  credentials  and,  in 
case  they  are  worthy  of  credit,  to  remove  the  doubts 
of  the  skeptical,  is  thus  a  matter  of  prime  importance. 
But  the  fallacy  of  the  objection  implied  in  the  quota¬ 
tion  above,  does  not  rest  on  this  consideration  alone. 
If  miracles  attest  the  Christian  Revelation,  they  are 

a 

also  a  part — one  side — of  that  Revelation  itself.  They 
are  constitutive  of  Revelation,  so  that  in  proving  them 
we  are  establishing  not  so  much  a  collateral  circum¬ 
stance  as  a  part  of  the  main  fact.  They  are  one  ele¬ 
ment  in  the  immediate  manifestation  of  God.  The 
doctrine  is  divine,  but  the  works  also  are  divine. 

The  presumption  in  favor  of  the  miracles,  that  is 
created  by  the  excellence  and  credibility  of  the  doctrine, 
does  not  supersede  the  need  of  miracles,  nor  does  it 
supersede  the  need  of  faithful  testimony  to  their  occur¬ 
rence.  He  has  a  poor  understanding  of  logic  who 
does  not  know  that  two  sources  of  evidence  may  lend 
to  each  other  a  mutual  support.  The  excellence  of  the 
doctrine  sustains  the  testimony  to  the  miracles  ;  the 
proof  of  the  miracles  establishes  the  divinity  of  the 
doctrine. 

It  is  sometimes  urged  that  if  miracles  are  necessary 
in  the  original  communication  of  Christianity,  they  are 
not  less  to  be  expected  in  the  propagation  of  it.  And 
the  question  is  asked  why  we  refuse  to  give  credit  to 
reports  of  more  modern  miracles,  or  why  such  miracles 


510 


THE  CHRISTIAN  MIRACLES. 


are  not  wrought  now  in  conjunction  with  missionary 
labor?  We  do  not  consider  the  supposition  that 
miracles  have  been  wrought  since  the  apostolic  age  to 
be  so  absurd  as  many  seem  to  regard  it.  So  thorough 
a  historical  critic  as  Neander  hesitates  to  disbelieve  the 
testimony  to  the  miracles  said  to  be  performed  by 
that  devout  and  holy  preacher,  St.  Bernard,  and  so 
great  a  man  as  Edmund  Burke  takes  the  same  ground 
in  respect  to  the  miracles  attributed  to  early  Saxon 
missionaries  in  Britain.  But  there  is  generally  a  defect 
in  the  character  of  the  testimony,  in  the  habits  of 
careful  observation,  or  of  trustworthy  reporting,  which, 
apart  from  other  considerations,  prevents  us  from 
giving  credit  to  the  Catholic  miracles.  It  is  remark¬ 
able  that  some  of  the  most  eminent  mediaeval  mission¬ 
aries  disclaimed  the  power  of  performing  miracles. 
This  is  true  of  Ansgar,  the  famous  apostle  of  the  North 
of  Europe,  and  of  Boniface,  the  still  more  celebrated 
apostle  of  Germany.  They  were  ready  to  give  cre¬ 
dence  to  the  pretensions  of  others,  but  for  themselves 
professed  to  be  endued  with  no  supernatural  powers. 
Besides  this,  however,  there  is  another  consideration 
of  almost  decisive  weight.  The  origination  of  Chris¬ 
tianity,  a  method  of  salvation,  is  beyond  human  power ; 
not  so  the  propagation  of  the  religion  which  is  once 
communicated.  We  agree  that  the  general  method  of 
the  Divine  government  is  that  of  leaving  men  to  dis¬ 
cover  for  themselves  what  the  unaided  human  faculties 
are  competent  to  find  out.  The  laws  of  astronomy, 


POST-APOSTOLIC  MIRACLES. 


511 


the  physical  structure  and  history  of  the  globe,  with 
all  the  sciences  and  arts  which  belong  to  civilization, 
it  is  left  for  human  investigation,  in  the  slow  toil  of 
centuries,  to  develop.  But  the  true  knowledge  of  God 
was  practically  inaccessible  ;  salvation  was  something 
which  fallen  man  could  not  achieve  of  himself.  It 
accords,  therefore,  with  the  method  of  God  to  leave  the 
diffusion  of  the  blessings  of  Christianity,  when  they 
are  once  communicated,  to  the  agency  of  men,  with¬ 
holding  miraculous  (though  not  supernatural)  assistance 
to  their  endeavors.1  It  is  plain  that  in  the  Divine  ad¬ 
ministration  there  is  what  has  been  called  an  economy, 
or  sparing  use,  of  miracle.  The  Saviour’s  whole  man¬ 
ner  of  speaking  on  the  subject,  as  well  as  the  course 
which  he  pursued,  appears  to  indicate  that  miracles 
are  an  accommodation  to  human  weakness,  and  are 
granted  in  response  to  an  unwonted  exigency.  Com¬ 
paring  ourselves,  or  any  heathen  nation,  with  the  age 
contemporary  with  Christ,  we  find  ourselves  in  posses¬ 
sion  of  other  proofs  derived  from  the  operation  of 
Christianity  in  the  world,  which  may  well  stand  in  the 
room  of  any  ocular  demonstration  of  its  heavenly 
origin. 

1  That  supernatural  agency  of  God  which  is  not  manifestly  super¬ 
natural,  hut  which  is  so  connected  with  the  operation  of  natural 
causes  that  its  presence  is  not  palpable,  we  do  not  style  miracu¬ 
lous.  To  this  supernatural,  but  not  miraculous,  agency,  belongs  the 
Regeneration  and  Sanctification  of  the  soul.  Providential  answers 
to  prayer  may  fall  under  the  same  head— to  prayer,  for  instance,  for 
the  restoration  of  the  sick. 


512 


THE  CHRISTIAN  MIRACLES. 


The  foregoing  remarks  will  prepare  the  reader  for 
the  observation  that  miracles  are  an  inferior  species  of 
proof,  compared  with  the  moral  evidence  of  the  divine 
origin  of  Christianity,  and,  independently  of  the  im¬ 
pression  made  by  this  last  kind  of  evidence,  must 
fail  to  convince.  Such  is  undeniably  the  rank  assigned 
to  miracles  by  the  Saviour  himself.  Apart  from 
miracles,  there  was  proof  of  his  divine  mission,  as  he 
considered,  which  ought  to  satisfy  the  mind.  But  if 
this  proof  left  the  mind  still  skeptical,  he  pointed  to 
the  miracles.  “  Believe  me  that  I  am  in  the  Bather, 
and  the  Bather  in  me  ;  or  else  believe  me  for  the  very 
works’  sake.”  1  A  weak  faith,  an  inchoate  faith,  miracles 
might  confirm.  Where  there  was  a  receptive  temper, 
some  degree  of  spiritual  susceptibility,  miracles  were  a 
provocative  and  aid  of  faith.  But  where  there  was  an 
entire  insensibility  to  the  moral  side  of  the  gospel,  or 
an  absence  of  any  such  craving  for  the  truth  as  gave 
it  a  degree  of  self-evidencing  power,  the  Saviour 
refused  to  work  miracles.  Miracles  have  for  such 
minds  no  convincing  efficacy.  They  would  be  referred 
either  to  occult  natural  causes  or  to  diabolical  agency. 
Miracles  could  develop  and  reinforce  the  faith  which 
moral  evidence  had  partially  awakened.  They  could 
not  create  that  faith  outright.  They  could  not  serve  as 
a  substitute  for  the  proofs  which  touch  directly  the 
reason  and  conscience.  They  could  not  kindle  spiritual 
life  under  the  ribs  of  death.  They  were  an  appeal  to 


1  John  xiv.  11. 


MIRACLES  AND  MORAL  EVIDENCE. 


513 


the  senses,  symbolizing  the  spiritual  operation  of  the 
gospel,  and  subordinate^  aiding  the  confidence  of  the 
darkened  soul  in  the  divine  reality  of  the  gospel.  All 
the  teaching  of  Christ  concerning  the  place  and  use  of 
his  miracles,  and  concerning  the  comparative  value  and 
dignity  of  the  proof  from  miracles  and  from  the  moral 
evidence  of  his  divine  mission,  corroborates  the  doc¬ 
trine  we  have  laid  down,  that  the  former  are  subsidiary 
and  secondary,  and  are  due  to  the  condescension  of 
God,  who  affords  an  extraordinary  prop,  and  one  we 
have  properly  no  right  to  demand,  to  that  hesitating, 
incomplete  faith  which  has  been  excited  by  the  superior 
appeals  flowing  directly  from  the  Christian  system  itself 
and  the  character  of  its  Author. 

it  was  the  tendency  of  the  school  of  Paley  to  give 
the  greatest  prominence  in  the  Evidences  of  Revela¬ 
tion,  to  the  miracles.  The  internal  argument  in  their 
hands  often  received  less  than  justice.  Belief  was 
sought  to  be  produced  by  the  constraining  influence 
of  authority  through  the  medium  of  supernatural 
interposition.  In  that  reaction  against  this  school,  of 
which  Coleridge  more  than  any  other  individual  was 
the  efficient  promoter,  the  position  of  the  two  sources 
of  proof  was  reversed.  It  became  common  to  speak  of 
the  evidence  from  miracles  in  disparaging  terms,  as  if 
it  was  deserving  of  no  respect.  This  tendency  of 
course  found  support  from  such  as  rejected  the  super¬ 
natural  altogether  from  any  concern  in  the  origin  of 

Christianity.  In  some  quite  recent  writers,  the  pen- 
33 


514 


THE  CHRISTIAN  MIRACLES. 


* 


d ulum  oscillates  again  to  the  former  place.  The 
sound  view,  in  our  judgment,  lies  between  the  two 
extremes,  and  this  view  has  the  sanction  of  the  Saviour 
himself. 


i 


ESSAY  XII. 


THE  CREDIBILITY  OF  THE  TESTIMONY  OF  JESUS  CON¬ 
CERNING  HIMSELF. 

Pharisees  on  a  certain  occasion  taunted  Jesus  with 
pretending  to  be  a  witness  to  his  own  claims.  A  record 
which  he  bore  of  himself,  they  said,  deserved  no  credit, 
on  the  accepted  principle  that  a  man  cannot  be  wit- 
ness  in  his  own  case.  He  replied  that  his  testimony, 
although  it  related  to  himself  and  his  own  pretensions, 
was  nevertheless  true  and  credible.  To  be  sure,  there 
was,  besides,  an  objective  proof  answering  to  the  sub¬ 
jective  witness  of  his  own  consciousness,  and  verifying 
that  witness  to  others,  if  not  to  himself.  There  was, 
namely,  the  testimony  which  God  gave  through  the 
works  which  Jesus  wrought ;  works  which  man  with¬ 
out  God  could  not  have  done.  Yet  his  own  testimony, 
the  testimony  of  his  own  consciousness,  his  inward  con¬ 
viction  or  intuition  relative  to  his  mission,  and  to  the 
office  that  belonged  to  him  among  men,  he  justly  held 
to  be  of  itself,  under  the  circumstances,  a  valid  proof.1 

1  Johnviii.  14  :  “Though  I  bare  record  of  myself,  yet  my  record 
is  true.”  Only  in  verbal  opposition  to  this  affirmation  is  John  v.  31. 
“  The  seeming  contradiction  between  the  present  declaration  and  the 
former  concession  of  Jesus  is  explained,  if  we  suppose  that  he  there 


516  CREDIBILITY  OF  THE  TESTIMONY  OF  JESUS. 

To  develop  and  support  this  proposition  is  the  pur¬ 
pose  of  the  present  Essay. 

In  respect  to  the  contents,  or  proper  interpretation, 
of  the  testimony  of  Jesus  regarding  himself,  there  is, 
of  course,  some  difference  of  opinion.  But  the  points, 
to  which  we  now  draw  attention,  certainly  formed  a 
part  of  it,  as  all  sober  criticism  must  allow.  In  the 
first  place,  Jesus  claimed  to  act  in  virtue  of  a  special 
divine  commission.  He  had  been  sent  into  the  world 
in  a  sense  altogether  peculiar,  and  for  the  discharge 
of  a  mission  which  was  of  strictly  supernatural  origin. 
This  was  the  primary,  the  generic,  the  often-repeated, 
claim  of  Jesus,  which  it  were  idle  to  attempt  to  fritter 
away  or  to  resolve  into  a  figure.  He  was  preeminently, 
and  by  supernatural  appointment,  the  Messenger  of 
God  in  this  world.  In  the  second  place,  he  affirmed 
of  himself  a  lofty  and  peculiar  relationship  to  God. 
We  need  not  here  say  all  that  we  believe  upon  this 
point.  It  is  sufficient  for  our  present  argument  to 
notice  his  claim  to  a  knowledge  of  that  invisible  Being, 

thought  proper  to  follow  the  common  human  rule,  and  to  adduce  the 
testimony  of  others  in  his  behalf ;  whilst  here,  on  the  contrary,  he 
proceeds  in  conformity  with  the  higher  principle  that  the  Divine  can 
only  he  testified  to  and  proved  by  itself.  Besides,  there  is  in  the 
thing  itself  no  contradiction.  Ilis  self-testimony,  resting  upon  the 
consciousness  of  his  divine  mission,  corresponds  in  a  sense  to  the 
testimony  of  his  works  (John  v.  86),  inasmuch  as  these  always  pre¬ 
suppose  such  a  consciousness.”  (De  Wette  on  John  viii.  13).  See, 
also,  Meyer  (on  John  v.  31),  where  Euthymius  is  quoted  to  the  effect 
that  in  this  passage  Jesus  is  merely  anticipating  the  objection  of  the 
Jews — not  uttering  his  own  sentiment. 


CLAIMS  OF  JESUS. 


517 


which  in  kind  and  degree  surpasses  that  possessed  by 
all  other  men,  and  to  a  spiritual  union  with  Him  as 
intimate  as  language  is  capable  of  expressing.  He 
professes  to  stand  in  this  exalted,  mysterious  fellowship 
with  God ;  to  be  a  partaker  of  divine  prerogatives  ; 
and,  after  departing  from  the  world,  to  sit  on  the 
throne  of  universal  dominion.  In  the  third  place,  he 
assumes  towards  men  an  office  the  most  elevated  which 
imagination  can  conceive.  He  claims  to  be  the  moral 
Guide  and  Deliverer  of  mankind.  He  does  not  hesi¬ 
tate  to  style  himself,  in  this  relation,  the  Light,  or  the 
Illuminator  of  the  world ;  taking  the  same  place  in  the 
kingdom  of  souls  that  belongs  to  the  Sun  in  the  mate¬ 
rial  system.  In  the  exertion  of  the  office  committed 
to  him,  he  forgives  sin.  This  awful  prerogative,  which 
it  were  impious  for  a  mortal  to  take  upon  himself,  he 
does  not  hesitate  to  exercise.  He  invites  the  world  of 
men,  in  their  conscious  infirmity  and  guilt,  to  rest 
upon  him.  He  undertakes  to  procure  for  them  recon¬ 
ciliation  with  God.  He  bids  them  pray  with  confi¬ 
dence,  in  his  name.  He  promises,  even,  to  work  within 
them  moral  purification  through  potent  agencies  of 
which  he  is  the  prime  mover.  In  short,  he  assumes 
to  be  the  Deliverer  of  the  souls  of  men  from  their 
bondage  to  sin  and  exposure  to  retribution.  How 
exalted,  how  unparalleled  the  claim !  And  to  crown 
all,  judgment  over  the  race  is  lodged  in  his  hands.  He 
is  the  arbiter  of  destinies.  “  Before  him  shall  be 
gathered  all  nations.” 


518  CREDIBILITY  OF  THE  TESTIMONY  OF  JESUS. 

\ 

In  this  sketch  of  the  extraordinary  claims  of  J esus, 
we  have  exaggerated  nothing,  but  rather  have  pur- 
posely  stopped  short  of  their  full  magnitude.  They 
are  all  included  within  his  consciousness.  That  is  to 
say,  his  conscious  relation  to  God  involved  all  this. 
“  I  know”  he  said,  “  whence  I  come,  and  whither  I 
go.”  Back  of  all  these  claims  was  a  full,  inward  per¬ 
suasion  or  intuition  of  their  reality. 

Now  the  question  is,  Was  this  consciousness  of 
Christ  veracious  or  deceptive  ?  Did  it  represent  the 
reality,  or  was  it  the  fabric  of  enthusiasm  ?  Plainly 
such  is  the  alternative  to  which  we  are  brought. 
It  is  understood  that  we  leave  out  of  sight  for  the 
present,  the  miracles — the  objective  verification  of 
the  consciousness  and  the  claims  of  Christ.  Is 
this  consciousness — for  so  we  may  be  allowed  to 
style  the  intuitive  conviction  to  which  we  refer — of 
itself,  in  the  case  before  us,  trustworthy?  Or,  have 
we  in  these  claims  an  instance  of  unexampled  self- 
delusion  ? 

We  proceed  to  offer  reasons  why  this  last  hypo¬ 
thesis  cannot  rationally  be  entertained. 

One  very  remarkable  feature  of  the  Gospel  history, 
which  has  an  important  bearing  on  the  present  in¬ 
quiry,  we  must  notice  at  the  outset.  The  peculiar 
claim  of  Jesus  was  most  deliberately  made,  and  was 
made  persistently  in  the  face  of  all  the  opposition 
and  scrutiny  which  it  underwent.  Moreover,  the 
utmost  stress  was  laid  upon  it  by  Jesus  himself.  It 


CONSCIOUS  GREATNESS  OF  HIS  CLAIMS. 


519 


cannot  be  said  that  he  was  not  distinctly  aware  of 
the  momentous  import  of  the  claim  which  he  put  forth. 
This  he  understood  in  all  its  length  and  breadth. 
It  is  plain  that  he  had  a  calm,  yet  full  and  vivid, 
appreciation  of  its  nature.  Had  he  needed  any  spur 
to  reflection,  this  would  have  been  furnished  by  the 
unbelieving  and  inimical  attitude  of  almost  all  around 
him.  Never  were  pretensions  more  constantly  and  inge¬ 
niously  challenged.  Think  how  assured  his  own  spirit 
must  have  been,  to  pass  through  this  life-long  ordeal 
without  sharing,  in  the  faintest  degree,  the  misgivings 
and  distrust  of  the  surrounding  world !  Among  the 
rulers  and  leaders  of  the  nation,  among  his  own  kin¬ 
dred,  on  every  side,  there  was  pitying  or  scornful  dis¬ 
belief.  Yet  he  did  not  doubt  himself!  Moreover — 
and  this  is  a  point  of  especial  significance — he  made 
this  belief  in  him  the  cardinal  requirement,  the  turning- 
point,  and  test.  His  extraordinary  claims  and  asser¬ 
tions  respecting  himself  and  his  mission  are  not  left 
in  the  background.  On  the  contrary,  they  stand  out 
in  bold  relief.  Confidence  in  them  is  the  one  great 
demand,  the  first  and  fundamental  duty  which,  in  the 
preaching  of  his  religion,  men  are  called  upon  to  per¬ 
form.  How  much  do  we  read  about  belief  and  unbe¬ 
lief  on  the  pages  of  the  New  Testament !  The  same 
question  was  agitated  then,  even  in  the  very  presence 
of  Christ,  that  is  discussed  now.  Was  he,  or  was  he 
not,  worthy  of  belief?  Was  he,  indeed,  sent  from 
God,  or  did  he  speak  of  himself  ? 


520  CREDIBILITY  OF  THE  TESTIMONY  OF  JESUS. 

Now  it  is  adapted,  we  cannot  but  feel,  to  make  a 
strong  impression  on  every  thoughtful  mind,  to  reflect 
that  this  question  of  believing  or  disbelieving  in  him 
was  clothed,  in  tlie  estimation  of  Christ  himself,  with 
all  the  importance  that  justly  attaches  to  it.  However 
vast  his  claim,  he  knew  and  felt  how  vast  it  was. 
Not  only  did  he  stake  his  all,  and  sacrifice  all,  in  the 
maintenance  of  it,  but  he  concentrated,  so  to  speak, 
his  whole  system  in  it,  by  making  the  full  assent  to 
this  claim  the  one  foremost  and  essential  requirement. 
“This  is  the  work  of  God,  that  ye  believe  on  him 
whom  He  hath  sent.”  He  examined  his  disciples  as 
to  the  view  which  they  took  of  his  person  and  office. 
Who  think  ye  that  I  am?  was  his  question  to  them. 
He  was  acquainted  with  the  various  theories  concern¬ 
ing  him  that  were  entertained  by  his  contemporaries. 
When  there  was  everything  to  excite  self-questioning, 
the  consciousness  of  his  divine  mission  was  not  in  the 
least  disturbed.  Through  all  denial  of  him,  under  the 
frown  of  men  in  power  as  well  as  the  fierce  outcries 
of  the  fanatical  mob,  in  view  of  his  apparently  unsuc¬ 
cessful  career,  even  amidst  the  terrors  of  death,  the 
consciousness  of  his  divine  mission  remains  a  deep, 
immovable  conviction.  It  was  a  conviction  which 
reflection  —  self-knowledge' — Tiad  no  tendency  to 
weaken. 

Self-deception,  in  a  matter  like  this,  is  incompatible 
with  the  transcendent  holiness  and  goodness  of  Christ. 


HOLINESS  OF  CHRIST. 


521 


It  would  argue  sucli  a  degree  of  self-ignorance  and 
self-exaggeration  as  could  spring  only  from  a  deep 
moral  perversion. 

We  sliall  not  enter  into  an  elaborate  argument  to 
prove  the  spotless  character  of  Christ.  It  is  enough 
to  convince  us  of  his  sinless  purity,  that  while  his 
moral  discernment  was  so  penetrating  and  sure,  and 
his  ideal  of  character  absolutely  faultless,  and  his 
dealing  with  others  marked  by  a  moral  fidelity  so 
searching,  he  had  yet  no  consciousness  of  sin.  When 
the  tempter  came  he  found  nothing  in  him — no  province 
in  his  heart,  no  strip  of  territory,  which  he  could  call 
his  own.  The  teaching  of  Christ  presents  the  purest 
description  of  rectitude  and  holiness.  Every  man 
finds  in  it  practical  rebukes  of  sin — of  his  own  sin — • 
which  are  more  pointed  and  awful  than  he  can  find 
elsewhere.  Ilis  precepts  are  the  embodiment  and  ex¬ 
pression  of  a  pure  conscience.  Yet  the  feeling  of  self- 
reproach  never  entered  the  heart  of  Jesus.  It  is  im¬ 
possible  to  account  for  this,  except  on  the  supposition 
that  he  was  absolutely  free  from  sin.  Without  dwell¬ 
ing  on  the  excellence  of  Christ,  on  that  blending  of 
piety  and  philanthropy,  that  union  of  the  active  virtues 
with  the  passive  graces  of  character,  that  exquisite 
combination  and  harmony  of  virtues,  we  may  still 
advert  to  one  or  two  special  features  in  which  his  per¬ 
fection  shines  out.  Men  who  rise  far  above  the 
common  level  of  character  are  still  frequently  open  to 
temptation  from  two  sources,  ambition  and  friendship. 


522  CREDIBILITY  OF  THE  TESTIMONY  OF  JESUS. 


In  each  of  these  particulars,  Jesus  affords  an  example 
of  stainless  virtue.  The  love  of  power  and  worldly 
advancement  was  kept  far  away  from  his  heart.  He 
was  proof  against  self-seeking  in  this  enticing  form  of 
personal  aspiration.  Even  more  difficult  is  it  to  resist 
subtle  temptations  to  yield  something  of  truth  or  duty 
for  the  sake  of  friendship.  But  Jesus,  though  patient 
and  tender  towards  all  the  erring,  is  unsparingly  faith¬ 
ful  in  dealing  with  his  most  -intimate  disciples.  There 
is  no  exception,  no  tacit  indulgence,  no  accommodation 
of  the  moral  standard,  out  of  favor  to  them.  The 
foremost  of  them,  when  he  would  suggest  to  Jesus  a 
departure  from  the  hard  path  of  self-sacrifice,  is  sternly 
rebuked  under  the  name  of  Adversary  and  Tempter.1 
Even  their  resentment  at  injuries  offered  to  him  brings 
upon  them  his  disapprobation.2  He  tolerates  in  the 
best  loved,  and  in  the  seclusion  of  private  intercourse, 
no  temper  of  feeling  which  is  repugnant  to  the  prin¬ 
ciple  of  goodness.3 

Now  we  aver  that  the  holy  character  of  Christ  pre¬ 
cludes  the  possibility  of  a  monstrous  self-delusion  such 

1  Matt.  xvi.  23.  2  Luke  ix.  55. 

3  Among  the  delineations  of  the  character  of  Jesus,  the  pregnant 
aphorisms  of  Pascal  in  the  Pensees  have,  perhaps,  never  been  sur¬ 
passed.  Ullm ami’s  little  work  on  The  Sinlessness  of  Christ  (much 
enlarged  and  improved  in  the  later  editions)  is  convincing  and  im¬ 
pressive.  The  Christ  of  History ,  by  John  Young,  a  Scottish  writer, 
is  a  forcible  argument  on  the  same  general  subject.  As  an  extended 
portraiture  of  the  excellence  of  Christ,  the  chapters  in  Horace  Bush- 
nell’s  Nature  and  the  Supernatural ,  on  “  the  Character  of  Jesus,” 
besides  their  eloquence,  are  full  of  instructive  suggestion. 


THE  HUMILITY  OE  JESUS. 


523 


as  must  be  attributed  to  him  in  case  his  claims  are 
discredited.  The  soul  is  not  so  made  as  to  fall  a 
victim  to  this  enormous  self-deception,  whilst  the  moral 
part  is  sound  and  pure.  The  principle  that  if  the  eye 
be  single  the  whole  body  is  full  of  light,  is  applicable 
here.  There  is  a  shield  for  the  judgment  in  thorough 
moral  uprightness.  God  has  not  made  the  intelligence 
of  man  to  mislead  him  so  fearfully,  provided  he  abides 
in  his  integrity.  The  mind  is  a  witness  to  the  truth, 
and  was  made  for  that  end.  To  assume  that  the  in¬ 
most  consciousness  of  a  holy,  unfallen  soul,  in  the  full 
communion  of  God,  is  no  criterion  of  truth,  would  be 
aljnost  equivalent  to  supposing  that  the  world  is  made 
and  governed  by  an  evil  being.  We  found  the 
credibility  of  the  consciousness  of  Christ  on  his  perfect 
goodness. 

This  conclusion  is  fortified  when  we  consider,  in 
particular,  the  humility  of  Jesus.  Notwithstanding  the 
extraordinary  dignity  to  which  he  lays  claim,  humility 
marks  his  whole  demeanor.  He  is  careful  to  keep 
within  the  bounds  of  his  calling  ;  for  himself,  regarded 
apart  from  the  relationship  he  sustains  to  God  and 
from  his  office,  he  exacts  nothing  ;  from  every  symptom 
of  an  elated  mind,  from  every  feeling  of  self-glorifica¬ 
tion,  he  is  utterly  exempt ;  while,  in  his  intercourse 
with  his  fellow -men  of  every  rank,  there  appears  a 
winning  lowliness  of  heart.  This  mixture  of  humility 
with  so  lofty  claims — elements  seemingly  incongruous, 
yet  in  the  evangelical  portraiture  of  Jesus  so  naturally 


524  CREDIBILITY  OF  THE  TESTIMONY  OF  JESUS. 


uniting — makes  his  character  altogether  unique.  As¬ 
serting  for  himself  a  station  so  exalted,  he  is  yet  the 
impersonation  of  self-renouncing  regard  for  others. 
The  singular  humility  of  Christ,  emanating,  as  it  does, 
from  the  very  core  of  his  character,  renders  it  well-nigh 
inconceivable  that  he  could  have  been  bewildered  and 
blinded  by  a  self-exalting  delusion  respecting  his  rank 
in  the  universe  and  his  authority  among  men.  Such 
an  impression,  if  it  be  false,  must  have  its  roots  in  an 
immoderate  self-estimation.  Nothing  short  of  a  most 
inordinate  self-love  could  breed  a  persuasion  of  this 
nature,  if  there  was  in  truth  no  foundation  for  it.  But 
if  this  occult  misleading  principle  had  been  operative, 
other  and  offensive  manifestations  of  it  would  have 
appeared.  On  the  contrary,  a  rare  humility  before 
God  and  men  is  one  of  the  striking  characteristics  of 
Jesus.  It  would  seem  as  if  he  were  desirous  of  requir¬ 
ing  for  himself  the  least  that  he  could  require  in  con¬ 
sistency  with  truth.  And  even  this  he  requires,  not 
from  any  personal  love  of  honor  or  power,  but  rather 
in  the  interest  of  truth,  and  as  compelled  in  the  faith¬ 
ful  performance  of  the  work  which  it  was  given  him  to 
do.  Had  he  been  a  lover  of  power,  conspicuity,  au¬ 
thority,  rule,  we  might  possibly  account  for  the  rise  in 
his  soul  of  a  delusive  sense  of  personal  importance. 
But  in  one  who  was  actuated  by  motives  wholly  antag¬ 
onistic,  in  whose  eyes  the  doing  of  the  humblest  act 
of  love  was  nobler  than  to  wear  a  coronet,  in  him  who 
was  “  meek  and  of  a  lowly  heart,”  the  existence  of  a 


CONFUCIUS. 


525 


self- magnifying  illusion  of  this  nature  is  psychologically 
insoluble. 

No  case  analogous  to  that  of  the  founder  of  Chris- 
tianitv  can  be  cited  from  the  abundant  records  of  reli- 

t 

gious  enthusiasm.  It  is  true  that  multiplied  examples 
of  such  enthusiasm  exist  in  the  past.  There  have  been 
professed  prophets  and  founders  of  religions,  who  have 
believed  in  their  own  pretensions,  which  were  yet  the 
offspring  of  a  morbid  imagination.  But  none  of  these, 
in  respect  to  character  and  to  surrounding  circum¬ 
stances,  resembles  Christ,  or  helps  us  to  explain  his 
consciousness.  There  is  this  radical  difference,  that 
none  of  these  have  been  exempt  from  the  corrupting 
operation  of  sin.  The  effect  of  that  deranging,  disturb¬ 
ing  force,  has  been  experienced  not  only  in  the  char¬ 
acter,  its  immediate  seat,  but  also  in  the  intelligence. 
Because  they  who  are  groping  in  the  dark  lose  their 
path,  it  follows  not  that  such  will  be  the  lot  of  him  who 
walks  in  the  day.  Point  us  to  the  prophet  or  saint  who 
can  claim  the  unclouded  vision  which  is  the  attribute  of 
the  unfallen  soul,  and  we  admit  the  parallel.  But  let 
us  glance  at  some  of  these  leaders  whose  names  are 
sometimes  flippantly  coupled  with  the  name  of  Jesus. 

Confucius  cannot  be  placed  in  the  category  of  reli¬ 
gious  teachers  pretending  to  a  divine  mission.  He  was 
simply  a  teacher  of  moral  and  political  axioms ;  enti¬ 
tled  to  credit,  indeed,  for  certain  commendable  features 
in  his  ethical  doctrine,  but  disclaiming  any  special 


526  CREDIBILITY  OF  THE  TESTIMONY  OF  JESUS. 

knowledge  of  the  invisible  world.  He  laid  claim  to  no 
higher  character  than  that  of  a  sage,  drawing  from  no 
other  fountain  than  human  wisdom.  Buddha  was 
likewise  a  moral  reformer,  a  true  philanthropist, 
the  propounder  of  humane  ethical  precepts.  Though 
subsequently  invested  by  his  followers  with  a  halo  of 
supernatural  glory,  it  is  not  ascertained  that  this  monk 
and  mystic  himself  claimed  to  be  the  organ  of  a  divine 
revelation.  His  work,  as  far  as  it  was  religious,  was 
chiefly  negative,  consisting  in  the  deliverance  of  his 
followers  from  the  slavish  superstition  of  the  brahmin- 
ical  system,  by  denying  the  reality  of  the  objects  of 
their  previous  worship.  The  speculative  part  of  his 
system  was  his  own  discovery,  and  was  atheistic.  Of 
Zoroaster  too  little  is  known  to  enable  us  to  judge 
intelligently  of  his  mental  characteristics.  If  he 
claimed  to  have  received  communications  from  heaven, 
we  know  too  little  of  his  history  to  determine  the  shape 
and  extent  of  this  pretension.  How  far  he  was  really 
infected  with  a  mystic  enthusiasm,  and  how  far  the 
supernatural  elements  in  the  traditional  accounts  of  his 
career  have  sprung  from  the  fancy  of  later  generations, 
we  are  not  in  a  situation  to  decide.1  Skeptics  have 
sometimes  endeavored  to  draw  a  parallel  between 


1  A  tolerably  full,  and  doubtless  in  tlie  main  authentic,  account 
of  Zoroaster  and  Buddha,  and  of  the  wide-spread  religious  systems 
called  respectively  by  their  names,  may  he  found  in  Duncker’s 
Geschichte  des  Alterthums  (Vol.  I.),  a  work  which  offers  a  consecutive 
and  readable,  as  well  ns  learned,  exhibition  of  the  results  of  modern 


APOLLONIUS  :  MOHAMMED. 


527 


Apollonius  of  Tyana  and  the  author  of  the  Gospel. 
But  the  earliest  life  of  Apollonius,  the  work  of  Philos- 
tratus,  was  not  written  until  a  hundred  years  after  he 
lived,  and  the  resemblance  of  his  pretended  miracles 
to  the  miracles  of  the  Gospel  is  probably,  for  the  most 
part,  a  designed  parody  of  the  Saviour’s  history.  Of 
Apollonius  we  know  little  more  than  that  he  was  one  of 
the  more  famous  of  the  roving  magicians  and  dealers  in 
the  preternatural,  who,  in  that  epoch  of  spiritual  dis¬ 
traction,  found  a  ready  hearing  in  the  Roman  world. 

The  appeal  to  Mohammed,  as  a  notable  example 
of  sincere  but  unfounded  confidence  in  one’s  own 
divine  mission,  has  been  urged  with  more  frequency 
and  persistency.  Happily  the  investigations  which  have 
been  made  into  the  history  of  the  Arabian  prophet, 
have  furnished  the  explanation  of  his  remarkable  self- 
delusion.  This  solution  is  found  in  a  great  degree  in 
his  peculiarly  morbid  physical  constitution.  Subject 
from  his  youth  to  a  form  of  epilepsy,  and  combining 
with  this  nervous  infirmity  a  mystic  fervor  of  religious 
aspiration,  he  conceived  the  impression  that  the  extraor¬ 
dinary  states  of  body  and  soul  into  which  he  occasion¬ 
ally  fell,  were  due  to  the  action  of  celestial  beings,  and 
at  length  came  to  consider  himself  the  organ  of  a 
divine  revelation.  His  zeal  for  a  rigorous  monotheism 
inflamed  the  fanaticism  of  his  fiery  temperament,  and 
finally  impelled  him  to  missions  of  conquest ;  though 

investigation  in  the  department  of  oriental  history.  It  is  understood 
that  the  more  recent  researches  into  the  Zoroastrian  system  yield 
important  fruit. 


528 


CREDIBILITY  OF  THE  TESTIMONY  OF  JESUS. 


it  seems  to  be  admitted  that  after  his  establishment  at 
Medina,  and  with  his  advancing  success,  he  lost  much 
of  the  comparative  sincerity  and  singleness  of  his 
motives.  A  large  alloy  of  base  ambition  became  min¬ 
gled  up  with  the  enthusiasm  of  the  zealot.  In  the  case 
of  Mohammed,  there  were  present  all  the  materials 
which  are  needful  for  the  composition  of  an  enthusiast. 
His  hot  blood,  his  morbid  temperament,  his  inward 
yearnings  and  conflicts,  the  seasons  of  hallucination 
through  which  he  passed,  his  solitary  vigils  and  self¬ 
mortification,  are  sufficient  to  explain  the  origin  of  the 
delusion  which  gained  possession  of  his  mind.1 

1  The  best  biography  of  Mohammed  is  the  late  work  of  Dr. 
Sprenger,  who  has  had  the  command  of  wider  materials  than  were 
before  accessible.  lie  describes  with  much  fulness  the  maladies  to 
which  Mohammed  was  subject.  In  the  portions  of  this  copious  work 
which  we  have  read,  the  author  makes  the  impression  of  great 
knowledge  on  the  subject,  but  of  small  literary  skill,  with  a  tendency 
to  prolixness.  The  English  biography  of  Mohammed,  in  best  repute, 
is  the  recent  work  of  Mr.  Muir.  In  one  of  his  articles  in  the  Calcutta 
Review  (which  are  incorporated  into  his  subsequent  work),  Muir 
discusses  “  the  Belief  of  Mohammed  in  his  own  Inspiration.”  He 
traces  with  plausibility  the  psychological  origin  of  this  belief. 
“  How  far,”  says  Muir,  “  the  two  ideas  of  a  Resolution  subjectively 
formed,  and  involving  a  spontaneous  course  of  action,  and  of  a 
Divine  Inspiration  objectively  imparted  and  independent  of  his  own 
will,  were  at  first  simultaneously  present,  and  in  what  respective 
degrees,  it  is  difficult  to  conjecture.  But  it  is  certain  that  the  con¬ 
ception  of  a  divine  commission  soon  took  entire  and  undivided  pos¬ 
session  of  his  soul;  and,  colored  though  it  often  was  by  the  motions 
and  inducements  of  the  day,  or  mingled  with  apparently  incongruous 
desires,  retained  a  paramount  influence  until  the  hour  of  his  death.” 
(P.  320.)  Of  Mohammed  at  Medina,  Muir  says  (p.  330)  :  “  Ambition, 


PYTHAGORAS  :  SOCRATES. 


529 


But  there  were  men,  we  are  sometimes  told,  in  the 
ancient  world,  of  another  make  and  of  a  different  order 
of  mind  from  this,  who  were  yet  believed  by  themselves 
to  be  charged  with  a  divine  mission.  Pythagoras  was 
one.  Unfortunately,  the  earliest  extant  biographers  of 
Pythagoras,  Porphyry  and  his  pupil,  Jamblichus,  did 
not  write  until  seven  or  eight  hundred  years  after  the 
philosopher  whom  they  commemorate,  flourished  ;  and 
the  best  of  the  biographers  whom  they  cite  date  no 
further  back  than  about  two  centuries  after  their  mas¬ 
ter’s  death.  In  the  absence  of  contemporary  witnesses, 
the  knowledge  we  possess  both  of  the  mental  and 
moral  character,  and  the  pretensions,  of  Pythagoras, 
is  scanty  and,  to  a  considerable  extent,  inferential.  It 
would  be  nothing  strange  if  a  man  like  him,  at  that 
time,  imagined  that  natural  gifts  of  knowledge  were 
imparted  to  him  by  a  special  inspiration  of  the  divinity. 
It  is  difficult  to  see  how  anything  can  be  gathered  un¬ 
favorable  to  the  claims  of  Christ,  from  the  example  of 
a  heathen  mystic  so  indistinctly  known,  and  standing, 
withal,  at  the  dawning  period  of  scientific  thought. 

There  is,  however,  one  man  of  antiquity,  who,  in 
some  other  respects,  has  not  unfrequently  been  set  in 
comparison  with  Jesus,  and  the  conjunction  of  whose 
name  with  that  of  Christ  may  give  a  less  shock  to 
reverential  feeling.  Yet,  in  the  points  in  which  the 

rapine,  assassination,  Inst,  are  undenied  features  of  his  later  life, 
openly  sanctioned  by  an  assumed  permission,  or  even  command,  from 
the  Most  High  !  ” 

34 


530  CREDIBILITY  OF  THE  TESTIMONY  OF  JESUS. 

position  of  Socrates  is  more  usually  compared  with 
that  of  Christ,  Socrates  is  better  likened  to  the  fore¬ 
runner  of  Christ ;  as,  indeed,  he  was  styled  by  the 
Platonist  of  Florence,  Marsilius  Ficinus,  the  John  the 
Baptist  of  the  ancient  world.  The  Socratic  philosophy 
prepared  many  noble  minds  for  the  reception  of  the 
gospel,  by  its  congenial  tone,  and  by  the  cravings  which 
it  awakened  but  failed  to  satisfy. 

But  Socrates  believed  himself  to  have  been  entrusted 
with  a  divine  mission,  and  believed  that  he  enjoyed  an 
inward  supernatural  guidance.  We  are  quite  willing 
to  consider  this  persuasion  on  the  part  of  the  greatest 
man  of  the  ancient  heathen  world,  for  the  reason  that 
a  careful  consideration  of  the  character  of  this  belief 
of  Socrates  and  of  the  nature  of  his  pretensions  gen¬ 
erally,  will  serve  to  corroborate  strongly  the  argument 
which  has  been  presented  on  the  foregoing  pages. 

Socrates,  like  all  the  Greeks  of  the  time,  save  indi¬ 
viduals  here  and  there  who  may  have  disbelieved  in 
anything  divine,  thought  that  the  gods  made  known 
their  counsels  through  the  medium  of  dreams  and 
oracles.  This  will  be  called  a  superstition.  So,  he 
thought  that  the  study  of  physical  science,  when  car¬ 
ried  beyond  the  small  stock  of  knowledge  indispen¬ 
sable  for  the  practical  pursuits  of  life,  was  an  impiety 
* — a  meddling  with  what  belonged  to  the  gods.  This, 
too,  was  a  superstition.  Such  views  simply  indicate 
that  we  are  not  to  look,  even  in  Socrates,  for  a  miracu¬ 
lous  degree  of  enlightenment.  But  we  are  concerned 


SOCRATES. 


531 


here  with  the  view  which  he  took  of  himself  and  his 
mission.  And  here  it  is  to  be  observed  that  in  refer¬ 
ence  to  the  opportunity  of  being  taught  by  dream  and 
oracle,  and  the  like,  he  claimed  nothing  more  for  him¬ 
self  than  what  he  attributed  to  others.  In  this  matter 
all  stood  on  the  same  footing.  The  gods  heard 
prayer,  he  held,  and  gave  answer  in  these  ways.  In 
respect  to  the  work  to  which  he  devoted  himself, 
the  verdict  of  the  Delphian  oracle  in  favor  of  his  pre¬ 
eminent  wisdom  doubtless  had  an  important  influence 
in  leading  him  to  the  career  which  he  embraced  of  a 
public  interrogator  and  exposer  of  pretended  knowledge, 
and  teacher  of  such  as  cared  to  learn  of  him.  And 
this  work  he  considered  a  calling,  in  the  literal  sense, 
which  he  was  not  at  liberty  to  forsake.  He  supposed, 
also,  that  an  inward  monitor,  whose  restraining  impulse 
he  experienced  on  various  occasions,  was  given  him 
to  hold  him  back  from  a  mistaken  or  injurious  course 
of  action.  Tor  the  office  of  the  demon,  according  to 
what  must  be  considered  the  statement  of  Socrates 
himself,  in  the  Apology,  was  negative — never  suggest¬ 
ing  what  to  do,  but  simply,  on  occasions,  interposing 
resistance  to  stay  him  from  unwise  action.1  Now,  it 

1  Apologia,  c.  xix.  Socrates  says  of  the  inward  voice  :  del  diro- 
rpineL  p.e  rourou,  o  av  peXXco  nparreiv,  npoTpenei  Se  ovttotc.  Compare, 
also,  c.  xxxi.,  where  Socrates  says  that  through  all  the  legal  proceed¬ 
ings  in  his  case,  the  voice  in  his  soul  had  interposed  no  check  to  the 
course  he  was  taking,  and  where  he  defines  the  function  of  the 
supernatural  Monitor  in  the  same  way.  The  representations  of 
Xenophon  in  the  Memorabilia  (I.  1,  4,  et  al. ),  as  is  well  known,  are 


532  CltEDIBILITY  OF  THE  TESTIMONY  OF  JESUS. 

may  be  held,  that  this  supposed  demon  was  the  intui¬ 
tive  moral  impulse  of  Socrates  himself,  which,  in  the 
promptitude  of  its  action,  struck  him  as  the  voice  of 
another  in  his  soul ;  or,  in  common  with  some  of  the 
Christian  Fathers,  and  with  others  whom  it  were  harsh 
to  tax  with  credulity,  we  may  even  suppose  that  super¬ 
natural  enlightenment  was  not  withheld  from  this  man 
by  the  Being  before  whom  those  in  every  nation  who 
fear  Him — even  though  their  knowledge  of  Him  be 
imperfect — and  work  righteousness,  are  accepted. 

But  when  we  look  at  the  claims  of  Socrates  respecting 
himself,  we  find  that  he  is  far  from  assuming  preemi¬ 
nence  or  authority.  It  is  true  that  he  considered  his 
work  an  important  one,  and  himself  not  a  harmful  but 
a  needed  and  useful  citizen.  But  this  was  the  limit 
of  his  pretensions.  He  distinguished  himself  from 
other  men,  not  through  any  superiority  of  knowledge 
which  he  thought  himself  to  possess,  but  through  that 
consciousness  of  ignorance  which  belonged  to  him  and 
which  they  lacked.  He,  like  them,  knew  nothing, 
but,  unlike  them,  he  knew  that  he  knew  nothing.  Fie 
asserted  for  himself  no  greater  knowledge,  and  no 
more  certainty  of  knowledge  respecting  the  future  life, 
than  other  men  had.  He  claimed  to  exercise  no  au¬ 
thority  over  the  opinions  or  the  conduct  of  others.  If 

less  accurate ;  and  those  contained  in  the  Theages  (like  the  work 
i'tself)  come  not  from  Plato.  Yet  in  this  Dialogue  it  is  stated,  in 
conformity  with  the  Apology,  that  the  demon  only  forbids,  never 
instigates. 


SOCRATES. 


533 


the  demon  negatively  guided  him,  he  received  thereby 
no  authority  or  wisdom  for  the  control  of  other  men. 
He  was  simply  a  man  among  men  ;  a  humble  searcher 
for  truth ;  pretending  to  the  exertion  of  no  authority 
save  that  which  was  willingly  accorded  to  the  force  of 
his  reasonings.  In  fact,  a  principal  charm  of  Socrates 
is  bis  humble  sense  of  the  narrow  boundaries  of  human 
knowledge,  and  his  waiting  for  more  light. 

Let  us  now  change  the  picture  which  history  pre¬ 
sents  of  this  remarkable  man.  Let  us  suppose  that 
Socrates  had  claimed  to  be  invested  with  all  power  in 
heaven  and  on  earth,  had  required  the  acceptance  of 
his  doctrines  on  his  mere  authority,  had  demanded  of 
all  men  an  implicit  obedience  to  his  will,  had  styled 
himself  the  lord  and  master  of  his  disciples,  had 
assumed  to  pardon  impiety  and  transgression,  had  pro¬ 
fessed  an  ability  to  allot  to  men  their  everlasting  desti¬ 
nies,  besides  delivering  them  from  the  bonds  of  death, 
and  had  declared  himself  to  be  the  constituted  judge 
in  the  future  world  of  the  entire  race  of  man.  The 
question  we  put  is,  whether  assumptions  of  this  char¬ 
acter,  notwithstanding  acknowledged  virtues  of  Socrates, 
would  not  evince  either  a  demented  understanding  or 
an  ingrained,  monstrous  self-love  and  self-exaggeration, 
only  to  be  explained  on  the  supposition  of  a  deep 
moral  perversion  ?  Should  we  not  be  driven  to  con¬ 
clude  that  claims  so  extravagant  and  presumptuous  in 
a  sane  mind  imply  that  character  is  off  its  true  foun¬ 
dations  ?  How  else  could  self-deception  and  self-exalta- 


i 


534  CREDIBILITY  OF  THE  TESTIMONY  OF  JESUS. 

tioii  reach  this  height  ?  And  would  not  complacency 
for  certain  traits  and  actions  of  Socrates  be  lost  in  the 
repugnance  we  should  feel  for  this  arrogancy  of  pre¬ 
tension  ?  An  enthusiast  is  ordinarily  looked  upon  with 
compassion  by  sober  minds.  But  when  enthusiasm 
leaps  so  high,  and  leads  to  the  usurping  of  a  rank  far 
bevond  the  allowance  of  truth  and  the  moral  law,  it 
inspires  a  feeling  of  moral  aversion. 

Had  Jesus  stood  forth  simply  in  the  character  of  a 
promulgator  of  some  high,  and,  perhaps,  forgotten 
truth  in  theology  or  morals,  with  which  his  whole 
being  was  penetrated,  we  might  look  upon  the  mis¬ 
taken  belief  in  a  supernatural  mission  with  a  less 
unfavorable  judgment.  It  is  conceivable  that  the 
light  which  flashes  on  the  intelligence  should  be 
wrongly  attributed  to  a  supernatural  source,  that  the 
intuition  should  be  taken  for  miraculous  revelation, 
and  that  a  glowing,  absorbing  conviction  should  be 
held  to  come  from  above  in  a  supernatural  way.  Such, 
we  should  be  willing  to  grant,  was  the  principal  source 
of  Mohammed’s  original  faith  in  his  own  inspiration. 
The  feebly  recognized  truth  of  the  sovereign  control 
in  this  world  of  one  almighty  will  came  home  to  his 
soul  with  a  vividness  which  nothing,  in  his  view,  but 
preternatural  influence  could  account  for.  In  this,  or 
some  similar  way,  a  man  comes  to  recognize  himself 
as  the  chosen  repository  of  a  great,  vital  truth,  and 
the  chosen  instrument  for  propagating  it.  And  such  a 
conviction  is  even  consistent  with  humility,  so  long  as 


CHRIST  NOT  SELE-DECE1VED 


535 


the  truth  is  kept  uppermost  and  the  function  of  the 
prophet  is  felt  by  himself  to  be  merely  subordinate  and 
ministerial.  Nay,  the  very  contrast  between  the  sub¬ 
limity  of  the  truth  of  which  he  has  been  made  the 
recipient,  and  his  own  poor  merits,  may  intensify  the 
feeling  of  personal  unworthiness.  The  prophet  or  saint 
feels  abashed  at  being  made  the  channel  for  conveying 
the  divine  communication.  It  is  true  that  pride  ever 
stands  near,  and  self-flattery  and  arrogance  gain  easy 
admission.  The  humility  is  apt  to  be  retained  only  in 
semblance,  while  it  is  really  supplanted  by  a  principle 
wholly  antagonistic.  Still  more  important  is  it  to 
remember  that  even  this  sort  of  self-deception  belongs 
to  men  who,  whatever  may  be  thought  of  their  earnest¬ 
ness  and  relative  excellence,  partake  of  the  sinfulness 
of  humanity.  If  they  fall  into  the  error  of  supposing 
that  they  are  specially  chosen  agents  of  heaven  when 
they  are  not,  this  is  among  the  delusions  which  are  due 
to  the  darkening  influence  of  the  sin  that  is  common 
to  mankind.  Apart  from  this  consideration,  there  was, 
in  fact,  no  one  idea  of  religion  to  which  the  mind  of 
Jesus  was  surrendered,  and  in  which  he  was  swallowed 
up.  The  fertility,  the  variety,  the  consistency,  and 
symmetry  of  his  teaching,  not  less  than  its  whole  tone 
and  temper,  forbid  this  hypothesis  respecting  him. 
But  the  decisive  answer  to  the  suggestion  that  he  was 
an  enthusiast  of  this  description  is  gathered  from  what 
was  said  in  the  beginning  of  the  extent  of  his  claims. 
These  claims  are  far  from  being  satisfied  when  he  is 


536  CREDIBILITY  OF  THE  TESTIMONY  OF  JESUS. 

looked  upon  as  the  simple  repository  and  organ  of 
a  divine  communication.  His  exalted  claims,  then,  in 
case  they  are  not  allowed,  must  be  credited  to  the  self- 
seeking  which  corrupts  the  simplicity  of  the  enthusiast, 
and  moves  him  to  put  himself  before  his  truth. 
Pride  and  ambition,  however  hidden  and  subtle  in  their 
working,  are  at  the  root  of  this  gross,  unwarranted 
self- elevation. 

We  are  brought  back  to  the  dilemma  which  was 
proposed  in  the  earlier  part  of  this  discussion.  The 
unbelief  of  the  time  professes  to  reject  all  claims  of  a 
supernatural  sort  which  were  put  forward  by  Jesus,  at 
the  same  time  that  it  loudly  professes  admiration  for 
his  personal  excellence.  It  is  true  that  Renan  throws 
out  the  suggestion  that  he  was  guilty  of  a  tacit  concur¬ 
rence  in  pious  frauds ;  but,  as  far  as  we  know,  Renan 
stands  alone  in  a  view  which  is  repugnant  to  the 
common  sense  of  every  sober-minded  student,  whether 
infidel  or  believing,  of  the  evangelical  history.  And 
even  Renan  allows  that  Jesus  had  full  faith  in  his  own 
Messiahship.  Infidelity  must  take  the  ground,  and, 
at  the  present  day,  almost  universally  does  take  the 
ground,  that  Jesus  was  a  religious  enthusiast.  His 
ethical  system  and,  perhaps,  a  part  of  his  religious 
teaching,  are  praised,  but  his  distinctive  claim  to  be 
the  Messiah  of  God  is  rejected  as  decidedly  as  it  wTas 
by  the  Jewish  elders  who  crucified  him.  As  if  to 
make  up  for  this  dishonor  put  upon  his  pretensions, 
abundant  laudation  is  bestowed,  as  we  have  said,  upon 


INCONSISTENCY  OE  SKEPTICS. 


537 


the  character  of  Jesus.  Skeptical  writers  of  the  present 
day  have  much  to  say  of  the  fine  balance  and  equipoise 
of  his  faculties.  Even  Strauss,  in  his  latest  work, 
pays  homage  to  the  harmony  of  his  nature.  But  these 
writers  frequently  go  farther ;  they  describe  him  as  the 
embodiment  of  whatever  is  pure  and  good,  the  highest 
exemplar  of  moral  excellence. 

We  deny  the  consistency  of  their  position.  We 
deny  the  justice  of  this  judgment  concerning  Jesus,  if, 
indeed,  as  they  tell  us,  his  extraordinary  claims  were 
founded  in  illusion.  We  are  obliged  with  all  solemnity 
to  affirm,  that  the  indulgence  of  the  thought  that  these 
awful  claims  were  the  fruit  of  self-deception,  carries 
along  with  it,  as  a  necessary  consequence,  a  feeling 
towards  Jesus  quite  opposed  to  the  reverence  and 
abundant  admiration  which  they  are  still  disposed  to 
lavish  upon  him.  In  other  words,  the  cherishing  of  a 
delusion  of  this  character  is  incompatible  with  that 
moral  soundness,  that  clear  and  thorough  truth  of 
character,  the  lack  of  which  debars  one  from  being  the 
legitimate  object  of  such  reverence  and  admiration. 
In  short,  the  skeptical  view  of  the  claims  of  Christ 
strikes  indirectly,  but  with  equal  effect,  at  his  character. 
It  is  impossible  to  stop  with  attributing  to  him  the 
weakness  of  an  enthusiast.  Such  a  delusion,  though 
it  be  unconscious,  can  have  no  other  ultimate  source 
than  moral  infirmity.  That  profound  truth  of  char¬ 
acter,  which  ensures  self-knowledge,  clarifies  the  intel¬ 
lect,  and  keeps  a  moral  being  in  his  own  place,  can  no 


538  CREDIBILITY  OF  THE  TESTIMONY  OF  JESUS. 


longer  be  supposed.  A  sentiment  of  mislike — of  aver¬ 
sion — must  take  the  place  of  moral  reverence.  In 
ordinary  life,  any  one  who  dreams  himself  entitled  to 
more  of  honor  and  deference  than  belongs  to  him,  and 
more  of  control  than  he  has  a  right  to  exert,  excites  a 
natural  disesteem.  Men  divine  that  false  pretensions, 
even  when  they  are  unconsciously  false,  spring  from 
some  occult  fault  of  character.  And  when  claims  are 
mistakenly  put  forth  which  would  lift  the  subject  of 
them  to  a  higher  than  earthly  pinnacle  of  dignity  and 
power,  the  same  verdict,  with  proportionally  augmented 
emphasis,  must  follow. 

The  supernatural  claims  of  Jesus  are  thus  identified 
with  the  excellence  of  his  character.  Both  stand  or 
fall  together.  Trust  in  him  has  a  warrant  in  his  trans¬ 
cendent  goodness.  He  could  not  be  self-deceived, 
and  therefore  his  testimony  respecting  himself  is 
credible.  He  who  lived  and  died  for  the  truth  was 
not  himself  enslaved  by  a  stupendous  falsehood.  But 
respecting  himself,  not  less  than  in  respect  to  the  other 
great  themes  of  his  teaching,  he  saw  and  uttered  the 
truth.  “  To  this  end,”  he  said,  “  was  I  born,  and  for 
this  cause  came  I  into  the  world,  that  I  should  bear 
witness  unto  the  truth.  He  that  is  of  the  truth 
heareth  my  voice.” 


ESSAY  XIII. 


THE  PERSONALITY  OF  GOD  :  IN  REPLY  TO  THE  POSI¬ 
TIVIST  AND  THE  PANTHEIST. 

The  truth  of  the  Personality  of  God  is  impugned, 
in  these  days,  by  two  diverse  and  mutually  repugnant 
systems,  Positivism  and  Pantheism.  Agreeing  in  this 
negation,  they  stand  at  a  world- wide  remove  from  one 
another,  as  to  the  grounds  on  which  it  is  based. 
Positivism  is  hardly  to  be  called  a  Philosophy  unless 
we  abandon  the  ancient  and  proper  sense  of  this  much 
abused  term.1  It  rather  disdains  philosophy,  in  the 
usual  acceptation  of  the  word,  as  a  fictitious  and  now 
obsolete  phenomenon  in  the  progress  of  thought.  It 
cannot  be  denied  that  M.  Compte  has  displayed  con¬ 
siderable  ingenuity  in  framing  his  classification  of  the 
Sciences,  though  in  this  task  he  is  far  from  being 
without  rivals  to  dispute  with  him  the  palm  of  merit, 
if  not  of  originality ;  and  so  far  as  his  classification  of  * 
the  objects  of  science  ascends  above  unintelligent 
nature  and  draws  in  men  and  society,  it  is  open  to 
the  essential  objections  which  lie  against  his  system  in 
general.  Man,  as  an  individual,  is  placed  under  the 

1  See  Hamilton’s  Metaphysics  (Am.  Ed.),  p.  45. 


540 


THE  PERSONALITY  OF  GOD. 


head  of  Physiology ;  and  if  the  social  man  is  honored 
with  a  separate  rubric,  no  better  reason  is  assigned 
than  that  every  animal  develops  a  distinct  set  of 
qualities  in  intercourse  with  his  kind.  Mental  philoso¬ 
phy,  in  its  recognized  ends  and  methods  of  obtaining 
them,  Compte  not  only  casts  out  of  his  scheme,  but 
treats  with  scorn  as  a  pretender  to  the  name  of  science. 

The  old  and  often  refuted  pretension,  by  which  the 

/ 

impossibility  of  Psychology  is  sought  to  be  demon¬ 
strated,  that  the  introspective  act  of  consciousness  puts 
a  stop  to  the  mental  operation  which  consciousness 
would  observe,  Compte  parades  anew  with  the  air  of 
a  discoverer.  He  acknowledges,  in  his  principal  work, 
that  he  has  not  read  Kant,  Hegel,  and  other  great 
modern  writers  in  the  field  of  Metaphysics.1  The  great 
business  of  the  human  intellect,  according  to  Positivism, 
is  to  observe  facts  and  to  register  them  by  the  rules  of 
chronological  sequence  and  of  similarity.  That  false 
imaginations  are  not  to  be  suffered  to  cloud  the  mind 
of  the  inquirer,  so  as  to  hinder  him  from  a  full  and 
unprejudiced  investigation  of  the  phenomena  presented 
to  experience,  is  in  truth  a  legitimate  lesson  of  the 
Baconian  system,  and  of  high  practical  importance, 
"especially  in  the  physical  sciences.  Nor  is  Positivism 
to  be  denied  the  merit  of  having  brought  prominently 
forward  this  valuable  truth.  The  mischief  is  that  this 
truth  is  presented  in  both  an  exaggerated  and  one¬ 
sided  form.  For  even  in  physical  studies  the  inquirer 


1  Cours  de  Philosophic  Positive ,  T.  I.  p.  xxxvi. 


PHILOSOPHY  OF  COMPTE. 


541 


is  piloted  by  that  scientific  imagination  which  awakens 
hypotheses  for  observation  to  test ;  and  in  spite  of  the 
Positivist  scorn  of  theories,  it  was  in  the  light  of 
theories  which  were  conjectural  until  observation  had 
established  them,  that  some  of  the  finest  discoveries, 
in  Astronomy  and  Chemistry,  for  example,  were  made. 
By  means  of  Hypothesis,  the  explorer  has  carried  a 
torch  before  him  to  light  him  on  his  path.  Of  this 
fact,  ignored  by  the  Positivist  school,  Whewell  has 
given  some  noteworthy  illustrations.  But  the  Positiv¬ 
ist  is  generally  one-sided  in  the  application  of  his 
favorite  maxim.  There  are  phenomena  in  the  moral, 
religious,  and  aesthetic  experience  of  man  which  are 
undeniable,  and  which  are,  as  they  have  always  been, 
most  potent  in  their  influence,  which  yet  are  tacitly 
ruled  out  of  the  realm  of  truth  acknowledged  by  the 
votaries  of  this  school.  If  we  are  to  be  confined  to 
the  observation  of  facts,  let  not  that  observation  be 
narrowed  down  to  that  single  class  of  phenomena  of 
which  the  senses  take  cognizance.  Otherwise  Posi¬ 
tivism  is  nothing  better  than  materialism  under  a  less 
odious  name. 

But  the  fatal  defect  in  Compte’s  handling  of  the 
axiom  to  which  we  have  adverted,  and  the  vice,  at  the 
same  time,  of  his  whole  system,  is  his  denial  of  efficient 
and  final  causes.1  The  universe  is  the  sequence  of 

1  Phil.  Positiv.,  T.  I.  p.  14,  and  passim.  J.  S.  Mill  states  (West¬ 
minster  Review,  April,  1865),  that  Compte  does  not  deny  the  exist¬ 
ence  of  causes  beyond  phenomenal  antecedents,  but  that  he  simply 


542 


THE  PERSONALITY  OP  GOD. 


phenomena  which  are  connected,  as  far  as  we  know,  by 
no  causative  agency,  and  related  to  no  intelligible 
ends.  The  felicity  of  him  who  explores  into  the  causes 
of  things,  which  has  heretofore  been  deemed  his 
strongest  incentive  and  best  reward,  is  no  more  to  be 

affirms  that  they  are  inaccessible  to  us.  Compte’s  language  is  that 
the  Positive  Philosophy  considers,  “  comme  absolumcnt  inaccessible 
et  vide  de  sens  pour  nous  la  recherche  de  ce  qu’on  appelle  les  causes, 
soit  premieres,  soit  finales.”  But  the  question  is  whether  there  be 
causation — causative  agency — dependence  of  one  thing  on  another, 
such  as  invariable  sequence,  or,  to  adopt  Mill’s  improved  formula, 
“  unconditional  invariable  sequence,”  does  not  express.  On  this 
point,  all  the  language  of  both  Compte  and  Mill  seems  to  imply  a 
negative  answer.  The  inquiry  into  causes  Compte  abandons  “  <1 
l’imagination  des  theologiens,  ou  aux  subtilites  des  metaphysiciens.” 
Philosophy  knows  of  nothing  but  sequences  of  phenomena.  Mill,  in 
his  Logic,  notwithstanding  his  general  disclaimer,  constantly  implies 
that  the  belief  in  causation  (beyond  stated  sequence)  is  without 
scientific  warrant.  “Nothing,”  he  says,  “can  better  show  the 
absence  of  any  scientific  ground  for  the  distinction  between  the  cause 
of  a  phenomenon  and  its  conditions  than,”  etc.,  (Mill’s  Logic ,  B.  II. 
c.  v.).  “  Force  ”  and  “attraction  ”  (the  former,  as  well  as  the  latter) 

applied  to  the  earth,  he  pronounces  logical  fictions.  He  declares 
that  the  relations  of  succession  and  similarity  among  phenomena  are 
the  only  subject  of  rational  investigation.  lie  protests  (c.  xxi)  against 
taking  necessity  of  thinking  as  a  criterion  of  reality.  Events,  he 
thinks,  may  be  conceived  of  as  occurring  at  random.  The  law  of 
causation  is  a  generalization  by  simple  enumeration.  In  distant  parts 
of  the  stellar  system,  he  says,  the  law  of  causation  (uniformity)  may 
not  prevail.  If  we  remember  right,  he  derides  the  notion  of  “  a 
mysterious  tie”  between  the  cause  (antecedent)  and  consequent. 

The  essential  question  is  whether  there  be  such  a  thing  as 
efficiency ,  and  whether  this  is  the  peculiar  property  of  a  cause  in  the 
strict  sense  of  the  term.  And  on  this  question,  Mill’s  position  is 
sufficiently  clear.  His  theory  has  little  advantage  over  that  of 
Hume. 


THE  PRINCIPLE  OF  CAUSATION. 


543 


looked  for.  He  may  find  out  wliat  is,  but  must  abjure 
the  thought  of  seeing  a  rationality  in  what  is.1  Now 
as  far  as  the  first  point  in  the  Positivist  skepticism  is 
concerned,  the  denial  of  the  validity  of  the  principle 
of  causation  is  the  rejection  of  one  of  the  necessary 
deliverances  of  the  human  mind.  We  are  under  the 
necessity  of  thinking  that  every  change  is  mediated 
by  the  exertion  of  power,  is  connected  with  a  force  or 
agency  existing  in  its  antecedents.  If  the  necessity  of 
thought  is  not  to  be  accepted  here  as  the  criterion  of 
truth,  then  Compte  has  nothing  on  which  to  rest  his 
faith  in  the  reality  of  the  external  world.  The  alterna¬ 
tive,  in  fact,  is  universal  skepticism.  Now,  that  our 
belief  in  efficient  causation  is  necessary,  can  be  made 
plain.  Let  any  one  suppose  an  absolute  void,  where 
nothing  exists.  He,  in  this  case,  not  only  cannot 
think  of  anything  beginning  to  be,  but  he  knows  that 
no  existence  could  come  into  being.  lie  affirms  this 
— every  man  in  the  right  use  of  reason  affirms  it — with 
the  same  necessity  with  which  he  affirms  the  impos¬ 
sibility  that  a  thing  should  be,  and  not  be,  contem¬ 
poraneously.  The  opposite,  in  both  cases,  is  not  only 
untrue,  but  inconceivable — contradictory  to  reason. 

1  Compte  admits  that  besides  the  practical  and  economic  use  of 
positive  science,  there  is  a  higher  advantage  from  it.  We  are  under 
the  necessity  of  having  some  arrangement  of  facts — for  example,  to 
escape  the  painful  feeling  of  astonishment  which  a  disconnected 
phenomenon  produces,  and  to  keep  off  metaphysics  and  theology ! 
This  verily  reduces  the  ideal  interest  of  scientific  study  to  a 
minimum.  See  Phil.  Positiv .,  T.  I.  pp.  63,  64. 


544 


THE  PERSONALITY  OE  GOD. 


Sucli  is  the  foundation  of  the  principle,  ex  niltilo  nihil 
fit.  But  if  a  phenomenon  is  wholly  disconnected  from 
its  antecedents,  if  there  be  no  shadow  of  a  causal 
nexus  between  it  and  them,  we  may  think  them  away, 
and  then  we  have  left  to  us  a  perfectly  isolated  event, 
with  nothing  before  it.  In  other  words,  it  is  just  as 
impossible  to  think  of  a  phenomenon  which  stands  in 
no  causal  connection  with  anything  before  it,  as  it  is 
to  think  of  an  event,  or  even  of  a  universe,  in  the  act 
of  springing  into  being  out  of  nothing.  Futile  is  the 
attempt  to  empty  the  mind  of  the  principle  of  efficient 
causation  ;  and  were  it  successful,  its  triumph  would 
involve  the  overthrow  of  all  assured  knowledge, 
because  it  would  be  secured  at  the  cost  of  discrediting 
our  native  and  necessary  convictions. 

Not  less  ill-founded  is  the  Positivist  opposition  to 
the  doctrine  of  Pinal  Causes.  One  may  cavil  at  par¬ 
ticular  forms  of  statement  in  which  this  doctrine  has 
been  embodied ;  but  that,  in  the  various  kingdoms  of 
Nature,  there  is  a  selection  of  means  with  reference  to 
ends,  is  a  truth  which  is  irresistibly  suggested  to  the 
simplest  as  well  as  the  wisest ;  as  the  reception  of  it 
by  mankind,  in  all  nations  and  ages,  sufficiently  attests. 
Speculation  cannot  dislodge  this  conviction  from  the 
human  mind,  for  it  will  return  again  with  every  fresh 
view  of  the  objects  of  nature.  It  has  been  the  clue,  as 
is  well  known,  to  important  discoveries,  for  instance  in 
Animal  Physiology.  The  use  of  a  given  organ,  its  fit¬ 
ness  to  an  end,  its  perceived  office  in  a  system,  has  en- 


compte’s  philosophy. 


545 


abled  the  naturalist  to  anticipate  observation  and  com¬ 
plete  the  fragmentary  animal  structure.  Witness  the 
remarkable  discoveries  of  Cuvier.  Of  the  place  of  the 
doctrine  of  Final  Causes  in  the  argument  for  Theism 
we  shall  speak  hereafter.  Here  we  simply  affirm  that 
the  fact  of  a  singular  adaptedness  of  means  to  ends, 
such  as  cannot  be  fortuitous,  but  must  be  the  fruit  of 
selection,  is  established  by  universal  observation,  and 
is  not  shaken  by  any  arguments  from  the  Positivist 
side.  What  inference  we  are  authorized  to  make  as 
to  the  being  of  God,  is  a  question  reserved  for  a  sub¬ 
sequent  part  of  this  Essay. 

Compte’s  well-known  description  of  the  stages  of 
human  progress,  of  which  the  first  is  the  Mythological, 
the  next  the  Metaphysical,  and  the  last  the  Positivist,1 
though  at  the  first  sight  it  strikes  one  as  ingenious, 
will  not  bear  the  historical  test,  and  is  moreover 
vitiated  by  an  underlying  fallacy.  There  is  no  proof 
that  the  principal  nations  of  the  Indo-germanic  and 
the  Semitic  stocks  ever  practised  fetish-worship,  or 
were  ever  enslaved  by  the  lowest  types  of  mythological 
religion,  or  ascended  from  them  to  somewhat  higher. 
All  the  proof  is  the  other  way.  There  is  no  proof  that 
mankind  were  originally  on  the  lowest  stage  of  relig¬ 
ious  knowledge  and*  feeling.  Apart  from  revelation 
even,  the  hypothesis  of  a  fall  and  degradation  from  a 
primitive  state  which  was  morally  more  elevated,  is 
equally  rational,  and,  in  our  judgment,  far  better  sus- 


i  Phil.  Positiv .,  T.  I.  p.  3  seq.  and  Tome  v. 
35 


546 


THE  PERSONALITY  OF  GOD. 


tained,  than  the  supposition  of  a  gradual  ascent  from 
a  moral  and  spiritual  life  little  superior  to  that  of  the 
brutes.  The  phenomena  of  conscience,  which  the 
philosopher  has  no  right  to  overlook,  sustain  the  Chris¬ 
tian  hypothesis  and  are  incompatible  with  its  opposite, 
while  the  existence  of  a  law  of  progress,  such  as  the 
anti-Christian  theory  assumes,  cannot  be  inductively 
established,  but  is  rather  disproved  by  the  facts  of 
history  and  observation.  Compte’s  imaginary  law  of 
succession  is  inconsistent  also  with  facts  in  one  other 
particular.  The  three  eras,  to  use  his  own  phraseology, 
the  Mythological  in  which  personal  deities  are  believed 
in,  the  Philosophical  in  which  notions,  such  as  essence, 
cause,  and  the  like,  are  substituted  for  them,  and  the 
Positivist  or  the  era  of  facts,  are  not  found  to  succeed 
each  other  in  this  fixed  order.  Compte  allows,  to  be 
sure,  that  one  may  overlap  the  other ;  but  this  conces¬ 
sion  falls  far  short  of  the  truth.  Who  will  venture  to 
affirm  that  a  metaphysician  like  Hegel  belongs  in  an 
earlier  era  of  intellectual  progress  than  his  contem¬ 
porary,  Compte  ?  In  the  case  of  the  former,  there  is 
not  only  the  supposed  advantage  of  living  in  the  same 
advanced  period  with  the  latter,  but  of  being  immense¬ 
ly  superior  in  mental  power  and  in  the  range  of  his 
acquisitions.  Who  will  affirm  that  Kepler,  and  New¬ 
ton  believed  in  God,  either  for  the  reason  that  Positiv¬ 
ism  had  not  been  announced,  or  because  they  were 
too  unphilosophical  to  receive  it  ?  Skepticism  and 
disbelief  in  the  supernatural  are  not  peculiar  to 


compte’s  philosophy. 


547 


modern  times.  They  have  appeared  and  re-appeared 
in  the  world’s  history  ever  since  men  began  to  specu¬ 
late.  This  generalization  of  Compte  is,  therefore, 
hasty  and  incorrect. 

But  a  most  glaring  error  connected  with  this 
theory  of  Compte  is  the  assumption  that  the  mytholo¬ 
gies  sprung  from  the  scientific  or  intellectual  motive. 
The  mythological  epoch  is  pronounced  the  earliest 
effort  of  the  human  mind  to  explain  the  changes  occur¬ 
ring  in  nature.  The  religious  motive,  the  instinct  of 
worship,  the  yearning  for  the  supernatural  and  divine, 
is  for  the  most  part,  or  wholly,  left  out  of  the  account. 
How  strangely  superficial  this  view  of  the  religions  of 
the  world  is,  no  thoughtful  scholar  needs  to  be  told. 
As  if  religion,  with  all  its  tremendous  power  in  human 
feeling  and  human  affairs,  were  simply  a  form  of  knowl¬ 
edge,  the  crude  offspring  of  curiosity !  Were  the 
Positivist  to  look  deeper  into  human  nature  and  his¬ 
tory,  he  would  see  that  religion,  even  in  the  perverse 
and  corrupt  forms  of  it,  rests  on  other  foundations ; 
and  this  perception  would  uncover  the  groundlessness 
of  his  whole  hypothesis.  For  if  the  religions  of  the 
heathen  have  their  root  in  the  constitution  of  the  soul, 
and  spring  from  ineradicable  principles  in  our  nature, 
it  follows  that,  although  they  may  pass  away,  religion 
will  not  cease,  but  will  survive  this  wild  outgrowth, 
in  a  life  undying  as  the  soul  itself.  The  advancement 
of  science  has  no  more  tendency  to  extirpate  religion 
than  it  has  to  extirpate  morality.  A  better  under- 


548 


THE  PERSONALITY  OP  GOD. 


standing  of  nature  may  enlighten  religion  and  tend  to 
purify  it  from  certain  errors,  but  to  destroy  it — never. 
One  might  as  well  contend  that  the  progress  of  Art 
tends  to  annihilate  the  sense  of  beauty,  or  that  clearer 
and  truer  conceptions  of  the  family  relation  tend  to 
eradicate  the  domestic  affections. 

Positivism  is  Atheism.  It  would  bind  human 
knowledge  down  to  a  bare  registry  of  facts,  and 
chiefly  to  facts  which  the  senses  observe  and  arith¬ 
metic  calculates.  Other  facts,  the  most  real,  the  most 
precious,  and  the  most  influential  upon  human  happi¬ 
ness  and  human  destiny,  it  scornfully  throws  aside. 
Instead  of  offering  an  answer  to  the  great  problems 
which  we  cannot  banish  from  thought  without  a  con¬ 
scious  abasement  of  our  nature  and  a  choice  of  indif¬ 
ference  and  torpor  instead  of  a  noble  disquiet,  this 
system  bids  us  cast  them  away  as  unpractical  and 
fictitious.  If  Paganism  be,  as  Positivism  asserts,  the 
lower  plane  of  knowledge,  one  may  still  be  pardoned 
for  preferring  to  stand  upon  it,  and  for  exclaiming,  in 
view  of  a  system  so  unsatisfying  as  this 

— “  I’d  rather  be 

A  Pagan,  suckled  in  a  creed  outworn, 

So  might  I,  standing  on  this  pleasant  lea, 

Have  glimpses  that  would  make  me  less  forlorn ; 

Have  sight  of  Proteus  rising  from  the  sea, 

Or  hear  old  Triton  blow  his  wreathed  horn.” 

More  fascinating  to  a  mind  of  a  speculative  cast, 
because  more  rich  in  contents  and  more  coherent  and 


FANTHEISM  DEFINED. 


549 


self-consistent  in  form,  are  the  later  systems  of  Panthe¬ 
ism.  Pantheism,  negatively  defined  in  its  relation  to 
religion,  is  the  denial  of  the  Personality  of  God. 
Pantheism  is  the  doctrine  that  God  is  synonymous 
with  the  totality  of  things,  and  attains  to  self-con¬ 
sciousness  only  in  the  finite  consciousness  of  men.  It 
is  the  doctrine  that  all  things  are  the  forms,  or  mani¬ 
festations,  or  developments  of  one  being  or  essence. 
That  being  is  termed  God.  Monism,  or  the  identify¬ 
ing  of  the  world  as  to  its  substance  with  God,  is  the 
defining  characteristic  of  Pantheism. 

Philosophy  early  started  in  quest  of  a  common 
ground  or  essence  of  all  existence.  Ancient  systems, 
one  after  another,  suggested  their  crude  solutions  of 
the  problem.  The  Pythagoreans,  for  instance,  were 
disposed  to  find  the  groundwork  of  all  being,  or  the 
one  originant  and  pervading  principle,  in  numbers. 
These  early  theories  which  are  so  fully  handled  in  the 
great  work  of  Cudworth,  as  well  as  by  later  historians 
of  philosophy,  we  have  no  call  at  present  to  examine. 
The  founder  of  modern  Pantheism  was  Spinoza. 
Assuming  the  monistic  doctrine,  he  laid  down  the 
proposition  that  the  one  and  simple  substance  is 
known  to  us  through  the  two  Attributes  of  infinite 
thought  and  infinite  extension.  Neither  of  these 
Attributes  implies  personality,  the  essential  elements 
of  which  are  denied  to  the  Substance.1  The  latter  is 

1  In  the  interpretation  of  Spinoza’s  system,  the  difficult  point  is 
the  relation  of  the  Attributes  to  the  Substance.  Does  he  mean  that 


550 


THE  PERSONALITY  OP  GOD. 


self-operative,  according  to  an  inward  necessity,  with¬ 
out  choice  or  reference  to  ends.  All  finite  existences, 
whether  material  or  mental,  are  merely  phenomenal. 
Spinoza  also  laid  down  the  famous  axiom :  omnis 
determinatio  est  negaiio ;  or  all  predication  is  limita¬ 
tion.  To  attach  predicates  or  qualities  is  to  reduce  to 
finitude.  In  this  notion,  whether  consciously  or  not, 
Spinoza  was  following  in  the  track  of  Christian 
theology  itself,  which,  as  represented  by  Augustin  and 
other  Platonic  theologians,  had  claimed  that  Deity  is 
exalted  above  the  distinction  of  essence  and  attribute. 
Some  had  even  maintained  that  God  is  hyperousian, 
or  that  the  term  essence  or  substance  is  inappro¬ 
priately  applied  to  the  Being  who  is  truly  Ineffable. 
It  need  not  be  said  that,  with  the  exception  of  that 
anomalous  product  of  the  eighth  century  and  marvel 
in  the  history  of  philosophy,  John  Scotus,  theology 
had  never  organized  itself  into  Pantheism,  from  which 

these  Attributes  belong  objectively  to  the  Substauce,  or  are  they 
only  relative  to  the  intellect  of  the  individual  beholding  it  ?  The 
last  is  the  more  usual  interpretation  of  Spinoza.  So  says  Erdmann, 
Geschichte  der  Neuern  Phil.,  I.  (2)  59  seq. ;  Kitter,  Geschichte  der 
Christ.  Phil.,  vii.  224;  Ulrici,  Geschichte  der  Neuern  Phil.,  I.  44  seq.; 
Schwegler,  Geschichte  der  Phil.,  s.  107,  and  other  critics.-  The  oppo¬ 
site  interpretation  is  upheld  by  another  class  of  writers.  Passages 
favoring  the  former  opinion  may  be  quoted  from  Epistles  of  Spinoza, 
especially  Ep.  xxvii.  It  also  harmonizes  better  with  the  maxim, 
omnis  determinatio,  etc.  The  second  interpretation,  however,  better 
accords  with  the  mathematical  character  which  Spinoza  endeavors 
to  give  to  his  system,  in  the  Ethics.  In  whatever  way  this  question 
may  be  decided,  it  is  plain  to  all  that  the  “  infinite  thought  ”  which 
is  attributed  to  the  Substance  excludes  self-consciousness  and  choice. 


SYSTEM  OF  SPINOZA. 


551 


all  the  great  teachers  of  the  Church  would  have  shrunk 
with  horror.  Their  object  in  these  statements  was  to 
elevate  God  to  the  greatest  imaginable  height  by 
affirming  His  incomprehensible  nature.  The  system 
of  Spinoza  is  built  up,  with  an  attempt  at  mathemati¬ 
cal  demonstration,  on  the  primary  assumption  respect¬ 
ing  the  one  and  simple  substance — the  una  et  unica 
substantia.  Of  course,  the  personality  of  God,  a 
supernatural  Providence,  miracles  in  the  proper  sense, 
and  Revelation,  are  given  up.  Of  the  effect  of  the 
Spinozistic  system  upon  the  conception  of  moral  liberty 
and  responsibility,  we  shall  speak  hereafter. 

Although  Spinoza  borrowed  his  definition  of  sub¬ 
stance  from  Des  Cartes,  he  is  original  in  the  main 
features  of  his  scheme.  He  is  the  forerunner  of  the 
later  German  systems,  as  some  of  their  leading  repre¬ 
sentatives,  including  Hegel,  have  allowed.  Yet  these 
systems  would  not  have  arisen,  but  for  the  impulse 
communicated  from  an  intervening  thinker,  himself 
a  firm  believer  in  the  principles  of  theism,  the  foremost 
philosopher  of  modern  times,  Immanuel  Kant.  In 
undertaking  to  criticise  the  knowing  power,  and  to 
determine  how  far  knowledge  is  a  product  of  the  sub¬ 
jective  factor,  a  resultant  from  the  operation  of  the 
mind  itself,  Kant  took  hold  of  a  great  problem  of 
philosophy.  He  set  out  to  dissect  knowledge,  and  to 
separate  its  constituent  elements  according  to  their 
origin  whether  subjective  or  objective.  This  involved 
an  inquiry  into  the  nature  of  things — the  nature  of 


552 


THE  PERSONALITY  OF  GOD. 


being — the  object  as  well  as  the  subject  of  knowledge. 
The  question  to  be  determined  was,  what  is  given  to 
the  knowing  organ  and  exists  independently  of  it,  and 
what  does  this  organ  itself  contribute.  The  conclusion 
of  the  theoretical  philosophy  was  that  we  are  assured 
of  nothing  save  the  bare  existence  of  the  object  which 
sets  in  motion  the  mechanism  of  thought.  All  else 
that  constitutes  knowledge  is  of  subjective  origin. 
Space  and  time  are  a  priori  forms  of  sensuous  intuition 
• — the  frame  in  which  objects  are  set  by  the  perceiving 
subject.  The  so-called  categories — -substance  and  acci¬ 
dent,  cause  and  effect,  and  the  rest — are  the  a  priori 
forms  of  the  judging  faculty,  a  description  of  the 
nature  of  the  understanding,  not  of  the  nature  of 
things.  The  ideas  of  Reason,  the  ultimate  concep¬ 
tions  presupposed  in  the  three  forms  of  logical  judg¬ 
ment,  or  the  three  phases  of  the  unconditioned — 
namely,  the  Soul  as  a  thinking  substance,  the  World 
as  a  whole,  and  God,  the  highest  condition  of  the 
possibility  of  all  things — are  only  the  rubrics  under 
which  the  categories  are  reduced  to  unity.  Not 
having  an  empirical,  but  an  a  priori,  origin,  they  do 
not  admit  of  an  application  to  external  objects,  nor 
can  they  be  assumed  to  represent  realities ;  and  if  this 
be  done,  the  antinomies,  or  logical  contradictions,  that 
inevitably  result,  warn  us  that  Reason  is  out  of  its 
province,  and  that  the  undertaking  is  illegitimate.  The 
objective  factor  was  thus  reduced  to  a  minimum.  In 
this  department  of  his  philosophy  Kant  stopped  only 


KANT  AND  FICHTE. 


553 


one  step  short  of  universal  skepticism.  For  of  what 
avail  that  a-priori  truth  is  supported,  against  Hume, 
by  the  criteria  of  universality  and  necessity,  if  this 
truth  is  after  all  endued  with  no  objective  validity  ? 
Of  what  value  is  a  subjective  certainty  which  simply 
reveals  a  law  of  thought,  but  contains  no  assurance  of 
a  corresponding  law  of  things  ?  The  practical  philoso¬ 
phy  of  Kant  rescued  his  system  from  the  consequences 
so  fatal  to  religion.  But  the  theoretical  philosophy 
was  the  starting-point  of  the  subsequent  systems. 

Fichte  took  the  short  step  which  Kant  steadfastly 
refused  to  take.  He  drew  the  object  itself,  whose 
bare  existence  was  all  that  is  known  concerning  it, 
within  the  subjective  sphere.  If  the  object  is  assumed 
merely  as  a  cause  to  account  for  states  of  consciousness, 
while  the  principle  of  causation  is  itself  purely  subjec¬ 
tive,  merely  a  law  or  mould  of  thought,  then  Idealism 
seemed  to  be  logically  inferred. 

The  Idealism  of  Fichte  evolves  the  external  world 
(so  called)  from  the  thinking  subject.  All  things  which 
constitute  the  objects  of  thought  are  modifications  of 
consciousness  which  are  wholly  due  to  the  self-activity 
of  the  subject.  The  impression  of  externality  results 
from  the  check  put  upon  this  self-activity  by  its  own 
inward  law.  It  is  not,  however,  from  the  particular, 
individual  ego,  that  all  existence  thus  issues  forth, 
but  rather  from  the  absolute,  impersonal  Ego,  which 
evolves  at  the  same  time  the  individual  subject,  and 
the  object  which  is  inseparably  related  to  it.  The 


554 


THE  PERSONALITY  OE  GOD. 


relativity  of  consciousness,  in  which  the  ego  and  the 
object  of  thought  stand  in  correlation,  belongs  to  the 
finite  subject,  and  not  to  the  Absolute  Being ;  yet  the 
Absolute  is  viewed  as  a  subject  and  denominated  the 
Ego.1 

Schelling  modified  Eichte’s  conception  of  the  Abso¬ 
lute.  The  Absolute,  the  root  of  all  particular  exist¬ 
ences,  is  no  more  to  be  called  subject  than  object. 
It  belongs  equally  to  the  thinker  and  the  thing.  In 
truth,  it  lies  equidistant  from  both  poles  of  con¬ 
sciousness,  the  subjective  and  the  objective.  It  is 
the  indifference-point  between  them.  That  is  to 
say,  both  the  external  world  and  the  percipient 
subject  are  identical  in  essence  and  in  origin.  They 
flow  from  the  same  fountain,  which  is  the  absolute, 
impersonal  being.  Connected  with  this  view,  wTas 
Schelling’ s  dynamical  conception  of  Nature.  Nature 
is  made  up  of  forces.  Nature  is  pervaded  through 
and  through  with  rationality.  Eor  this  reason,  it  is 
possible  for  Nature  to  be  an  object  of  knowledge.  The 
mind  and  Nature  are  bound  to  each  other  by  the 
closest  affinities.  The  knowledge  of  Nature  is  Nature 
itself  attaining  to  self-consciousness.  Eor  knowing  is 
a  form  of  being — of  the  identical  being  of  which  Nature 
is  a  lower  expression.  But  how  to  cognize  the  hypo¬ 
thetical  Absolute  ?  Relation  and  dependence  cleave 
inseparably  to  conscious  thought,  and  the  thinking  sub- 

1  The  different  phases  or  modifications  of  Fichte’s  system  we  do 
not  here  attempt  to  describe. 


SCHELLING  AND  HEGEL. 


555 


ject  can  escape  from  itself — get  behind  itself — only  by 
abolishing  thought.  But  this  does  not  secure  the 
end,  for  the  cessation  of  thought  is  not  the  cognition 
of  the  Absolute.  Hence  Schelling  supposed  a  pecu¬ 
liar  organ  of  Intellectual  Intuition,  by  which  the  soul, 
freeing:  itself  from  the  ordinary  bonds  of  consciousness, 

O  %j  y 

gains  a  direct  vision  of  the  Absolute.  He  took  refuge 
in  a  mystical  theory,  which  reminds  us  of  Plotinus. 

It  is  no  wonder  that  the  rigorous  intellect  of  Hegel 
was  dissatisfied  with  this  mode  of  bridging  the  gulf 
between  finite  and  infinite  being.  Accepting  the 
general  notion  of  the  Absolute,  as  defined  by  Schelling, 
Hegel  professed  to  set  forth  the  process  in  which  the 
entire  universe  is  necessarily  evolved.  Thought  and 
being  are  identical :  hence  the  universe,  including 
God,  nature,  self,  is  resolved  into  a  thought-process, 
or  a  chain  of  concepts  self-evolved  through  an  inward 
necessity,  and  comprising  and  exhausting  in  themselves 
all  reality.  Indeterminate  being,  the  notion  first  in 
order,  necessary  and  self-supported,  implies,  or,  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  Hegelian  language,  changes  into,  another 
notion,  and  the  twTo  in  turn  are  merged  in  a  third 
which  is  more  specific  than  either ;  and  so  the  process 
goes  forward  until  all  concrete  existences  take  their 
places  in  the  series  of  concepts.  To  the  philosophic 
eye  all  reality  is  summed  up  in  this  realm  of  concepts. 
But  the  philosophic  view  is  the  last  stage  in  the 
development  of  consciousness.  It  is  interesting  to 
inquire  what  account  Hegel  gives  of  sense-perceptions 


556 


THE  PERSONALITY  OF  GOD. 


as  they  are  found  in  the  common  consciousness  of 
men.  Schelling  was  not  a  Berkleian.  Notwithstand- 
ing  his  dynamical,  idealistic  theory  of  Nature,  and  his 
monism,  the  object  had  not  less  reality,  in  his  system, 
than  the  subject.  The  external  world  was  real,  as  well 
as  the  mind  that  perceives  it.  The  same  is  affirmed 
by  Hegel:  Yet  he  constantly  speaks  of  a  transmuta¬ 
tion  of  consciousness  from  the  state  of  perception  to 
that  of  conception,  and  of  the  transmutation  of  the 
thing ^  also,  which  is  the  object  of  perception,  into  the 
mental  concept.  It  is  plain  that  with  Hegel  both 
subject  and  object,  thinker  and  thing,  are  engulfed 
in  the  logical  thought-process,  and  that  both  coalesce 
and  are  identified  in  the  Absolute.  The  object  has 
nothing  more  than  a  transient  reality.  The  ordinary 
sense-perception  is  only  the  first  stage  in  a  movement 
which  soon  liberates  consciousness  from  this  impression 
of  a  distinct  externality  in  the  object,  and  in  the  con¬ 
summation  of  which  both  object  and  subject  resolve 
themselves  into  the  one,  identical,  absolute  being. 
Then  all  reality  is  fathomed,  and  thence,  as  from  a 
new  starting-point,  the  universe  is  reconstructed  by 
the  philosopher,  or  rather  rises  of  itself,  by  its  own 
inherent  and  necessary  movement,  in  his  consciousness 
This  process  as  it  takes  plac-e  in  the  consciousness  of 
the  philosopher,  is  the  self-unfolding  of  the  innermost 
nature  of  things.  In  it  and  through  it  Deity  attains 
to  self-consciousness.1 


1  Among  the  multitude  of  German  dissertations  which  have  a 


THE  HEGELIAN  THEOLOGY. 


557 


The  Hegelian  school  pretended  to  find  an  equiva¬ 
lent  for  the  objects  of  Christian  faith  and  the  proposi¬ 
tions  of  Christian  theology  in  the  dogmas  of  their 
system.  The  latter  were  said  to  be  the  pure  and  final 
rendering  of  that  which  Christianity  presents  in  a 
popular  form.  The  substantial  contents  of  both  were 
averred  to  be  identical.  The  Trinity,  the  Atonement, 
and  the  other  doctrines  of  the  orthodox  creed  had  now 
— so  it  was  claimed — received  a  philosophical  vindica¬ 
tion  ;  and  the  vulgar  Rationalism  which  had  flippantly 
impugned  these  high  mysteries,  was  at  length  laid 
low.  These  sounding  pretensions  could  only  mislead 
the  undiscerning.  A  philosophy  which  denies  the 
distinct  personality  of  God,  and  consequently  must 
regard  prayer  as  an  absurdity,  can  by  no  legerdemain 
be  identified  with  Christian  doctrine.  The  appearance 
of  the  Life  of  Christ  by  Strauss,  and  the  subsequent 
productions  of  Baur  and  his  school,  through  the  appli¬ 
cations  which  they  made  of  the  Hegelian  tenets  to  the 
New  Testament  history  and  the  teaching  of  the 
apostles,  placed  this  conclusion  beyond  a  doubt. 

Having  thus  noticed  the  leading  forms  of  Panthe¬ 
ism,  we  offer  some  remarks  which  may  serve  to  evince 
the  untenable  character  of  this  philosophy. 

1.  The  fundamental  assumption  of  Pantheism  that 

bearing  on  the  origin  and  character  of  the  new  philosophy,  we  may 
refer  here  to  one,  the  beautiful  Essay  of  Schelling  uber  die  Quelle  der 
Ewigen  Wahrheiten ,  which  was  read  in  the  Berlin  Academy  in  1850. 
See  Schelling’s  Works  (II.  Abth.  I.),  p.  575. 


558 


THE  PERSONALITY  OF  GOD. 


all  things  are  of  one  substance,  whether  taken  in  the 
Spinozistic  sense,  or  in  that  of  the  later  German  phi¬ 
losophers — is  not  supported  by  evidence,  but  is  con¬ 
trary  to  the  truth. 

The  doctrine  of  one  Substance,  this  grand  postu¬ 
late  of  Pantheism,  is  an  uncertified  dogma  for  which 
no  proof  is  vouchsafed.  Yet  it  forms  the  foundation 
on  which  the  Pantheistic  systems  rest. 

There  is  the  best  reason  for  concluding  that  the 
objects  of  perception  are  essentially  distinct  from  the 
percipient  mind.  These  objects  are  seen  face  to  face, 
and  known  as  external.  In  their  manifestations  they 
are  totally  diverse  from  the  characteristics  of  mind, 
which  are  revealed  in  consciousness.  It  is  a  just 
inference  that  materialism  and  idealism,  the  two  forms 
of  the  monistic  theory,  are  alike  false. 

As  concerns  the  Plegelian  scheme,  Schelling,  in  his 
new  system,  has  suggested  a  sufficient  refutation.  If 
the  logical  development  in  Plegel  were  allowed  to  be 
throughout  coherent  and  demonstrative,  we  have  only 
a  string  of  abstractions.  We  have  only  a  theory,  or 
ideal  framework,  of  the  universe,  but  no  reality,  no 
real  being.  If  there  are  no  realities  corresponding  to 
the  idea  and  known  through  experience,  the  universe 
is  still  a  void.  It  were  as  rational  to  confound  the 
plan  of  a  castle  with  the  actual  edifice,  as  to  identify 
a  concept  with  a  real  being,  or  the  aggregate  of  con¬ 
cepts  with  a  universe  of  realities.  Therefore,  Hegel’s 
logic  at  best  describes  only  the  possibility  of  things. 


PANTHEISM  UNTENABLE. 


559 


It  is  a  merely  negative  philosophy.  If  this  philosophy 
were  all,  and  if  real  being  were  not  brought  to  our 
knowledge  through  experience,  the  result  would  be 
Nihilism.  Thought  and  being  are  distinct,  and  with 
the  admission  of  the  truth  of  this  proposition,  Panthe¬ 
ism  falls  to  the  ground. 

2.  The  Pantheistic  dogma,  even  though  it  were 
admitted,  does  not  solve  the  problem  which  it  pre¬ 
tends  to  explain.  Knowledge  is  not  accounted  for  by 
being  wholly  resolved  into  self-knowledge  ;  for  self- 
knowledge  is  a  phenomenon  not  a  whit  less  mysterious 
and  inexplicable  than  the  knowledge  of  not-self.  The 
Pantheist  takes  it  for  granted  that  the  knowledge  of 
anything  distinct  in  substance  from  the  knower,  is  out 
of  the  question  :  as  if  the  knowledge  which  the  knower 
has  of  himself  were  a  thing  more  easy  to  understand. 

3.  The  Pantheistic  conception  of  the  Absolute  is 
self- contradictory  and  false. 

We  believe  in  an  Absolute  Being,  that  is,  in  a 
being  for  whose  existence  no  other  being  is  necessary, 
or  who  stands  related  to  no  other  being,  as  a  condition 
of  existence.  But  the  Pantheistic  Absolute  includes 
in  itself  and  develops  out  of  itself  the  relative.  Here 
is  the  contradiction.  The  Absolute  is  placed  in  a 
necessary  relation  to  finite,  relative  existences.  They 
emanate  de  necessitate  naturae  from  the  bosom  of  the 
Absolute.  The  conception  of  the  latter  is  thus  directly 
violated ;  and  this  inconsistency  cannot  be  removed 
from  the  Pantheistic  scheme. 


560 


THE  PERSONALITY  OF  GOD. 


4.  The  deduction  of  finite  existence  from  infinite 
being  the  Pantheist  fails  to  make  conceivable. 

How  cogitative  and  incogitative  existences  are 
developed  out  of  the  characterless  substance,  Spinoza 
wholly  fails  to  render  intelligible.  How  is  the  world 
and  all  things  in  it  to  issue  forth  from  unlimited, 
uncharacterized  being?  What  is  the  moving  force, 
and  what  the  modus  operandi  ?  Hegel,  in  his  system, 
is  obliged  at  the  outset  to  proceed  on  the  supposition 
that  motion  or  activity  belongs  inherently  to  the  primi¬ 
tive  notion,  and  thus  introduces  a  quality  with  which 
we  become  acquainted  through  experience ;  but  even 
then  the  transition  from  being  without  attributes  to 
being  specially  characterized,  from  nothing  to  some¬ 
thing,  is  effected  by  sleight  of  hand. 

5.  The  Pantheist’s  conception  of  God  does  not 
satisfy  his  own  description  of  the  infinite  and  absolute 
being. 

The  God  of  the  Pantheist  is  dependent  on  a  pro¬ 
cess  of  development  for  the  realization  of  his  own 
being.  It  is  only  in  the  last  stage  of  this  progress 
that  self-consciousness  is  reached;  and  then  in  no 
individual,  but  only  in  the  human  race  collectively, 
through  the  course  of  its  history.  But  what  kind  of 
God  is  that  which  must  emerge  by  slow  gradations 
from  a  merely  potential  existence  to  the  manifestation 
and  comprehension  of  his  own  being  ? 

6.  At  the  same  time,  the  objections  of  the  Panthe¬ 
ist  to  the  theistic  conception  are  groundless. 


PANTHEISM  UNTENABLE. 


561 


(1)  The  Pantheist  objects  that  self-consciousness 
cannot  belong  to  God  in  Himself  considered,  because 
for  the  awakening  and  development  of  consciousness 
an  external  object  is  required.  But  this  statement  is 
an  unauthorized  inference  from  what  is  true  of  person¬ 
ality  in  man.  We  are  connected  with  a  material 
organism,  and  placed  in  a  relation  of  dependence  upon 
it  for  the  unfolding  of  our  spiritual  natures.  But  we 
have  no  right  to  conclude  that  this  peculiarity  attaches, 
as  a  necessary  condition,  to  all  personality.  The 
uncreated,  eternal  spirit  is  subject  to  no  such  condi¬ 
tion. 

(2)  Nor  does  personality  clash  with  infinitude  of 
perfections.  God  is  infinite,  because  all  conceivable 
perfections  belong  to  Him,  and  belong  to  Him  without 
limit  in  their  measure.  Infinity  is  a  negative  pre¬ 
dicate.  As  applied  to  a  given  quality  in  God,  it 
means  that  this  quality  is  not  partially  possessed,  but 
possessed  in  the  fullest  conceivable  measure.  As 
applied  to  the  sum  of  excellencies,  it  denotes  that  this 
sum  admits  of  no  addition. 

(3)  Nor  is  the  existence  of  the  world  as  distinct 
in  its  essence  from  God,  inconsistent  with  His  being 
the  Absolute.  If  the  world  were  a  necessary  exist¬ 
ence,  if  God  would  not  be  God  without  the  world, 
if  He  wTere  constrained  to  give  being  to  the  world, 
then  indeed  the  assertion  of  the  Pantheist  might  be 
true.  But  the  limitation  which  God  puts  upon  him¬ 
self  in  creation  is  voluntary.  It  is  a  self -limitation. 


36 


562 


THE  PERSONALITY  OF  GOD. 


Creation  is  no  wise  essential  to  tlie  realization  of  His 
attributes,  but  is  a  most  free  act,  performed  in  the 
exercise  of  benevolence. 

We  have  touched  upon  the  weakness  of  Panthe¬ 
ism  when  regarded  from  a  speculative  point  of  view. 
There  is  another  objection  of  a  different  kind,  but 
of  decisive  weight,  against  all  the  Pantheistic  sys¬ 
tems. 

7.  Pantheism  runs  counter  to  our  moral  intuitions. 

This  is  a  practical  objection,  an  objection  to  the 
consequences  of  the  Pantheistic  philosophy,  but  not 
the  less  pertinent  and  valid  on  that  account;  for  a 
system  which  involves  among  its  legitimate  con¬ 
sequences  the  denial  of  known  truth,  is  thereby  effec¬ 
tually  disproved. 

Every  Pantheistic  scheme  is,  and  must  be, 
thoroughly  necessitarian.  The  world  is  not  a  creation, 
but  a  necessary  development.  All  events  take  place 
by  the  same  rigid  necessity.  A  holy  or  a  sinful  act 
must  be  when  and  where  it  is,  just  as  a  star  must 
revolve  or  a  plant  grow.  Moral  liberty,  as  appre¬ 
hended  by  the  common  understanding  of  men,  is 
illusive.  The  distinction  between  physical  and  ethical 
experiences  of  the  soul  is  extinguished.  Even  per¬ 
sonality  itself  is  only  phenomenal.  Evil  is  not  evil, 
save  to  finite  apprehension ;  seen  from  a  loftier  plane 
it  is  a  form  of  good.  The  one  is  equally  essential 
and  desirable  with  the  other.  Crime,  remorse,  the 
self  approval  of  virtue,  are  robbed  of  their  essential 


PANTHEISM  UNTENABLE. 


563 


significance.  Moral  responsibility,  in  the  deep  and 
true  sense  in  which  conscience  affirms  it,  has  no  place. 

These  consequences,  though  sometimes  disguised 
under  an  obscure  or  sounding  terminology,  inevitably 
attend  Pantheism  in  all  its  forms.  The  ablest  advo¬ 
cates  of  this  philosophy,  including  both  Spinoza  and 
Hegel,  have  involuntarily  betrayed  the  embarrassment 
which  these  conclusions  are  well  fitted  to  awaken. 
Against  them  the  moral  sense  of  every  unperverted 
mind  will  forever  lift  an  indignant  denial.  But  the 
irresistible  protest  of  conscience  tells  with  equal  effect 
against  the  whole  system  with  which  they  are  insepa¬ 
rably  connected. 

The  Pantheistic  systems  of  philosophy  which  have 
appeared  in  Germany  since  Kant,  regarded  as  exer¬ 
tions  of  intellectual  power,  have  hardly  been  surpassed 
since  the  best  days  of  the  Greek  philosophy.  But 
they  are  built  upon  a  false  foundation,  and  hence, 
though  they  contain  materials  of  high  and  lasting 
value,  they  are  structures  which  cannot  stand.  Their 
splendor  is  like  the  deceptive  lustre  of  that  4 'fabric 
huge  ”  which  was  reared  by  the  fallen  spirits,  where 

u  from  the  arched  roof, 

Pendent  by  subtle  magic,  many  a  row 
Of  starry  lamps  and  blazing  cressets,  fed 
By  naphtha  and  asphaltus,  yielded  light 
As  from  a  s&y.” 

There  are  two  generic  opinions  among  Christian 
theologians  respecting  the  origin  of  our  belief  in  God. 


564 


THE  PERSONALITY  OF  GOD. 


By  some  it  is  considered  to  be  implanted  in  tlie  mind 
and  spontaneously  developed ;  by  others  it  is  thought 
to  be  imported  into  the  mind,  or  to  be  the  result  of  a 
process  of  reasoning.  Perhaps  the  difference  might  be 
resolved  into  a  verbal  one ;  since  the  first  class  gen¬ 
erally  allow  that  this  native  belief  is  educed  by  training 
and  the  view  of  the  works  of  God,  and  the  second 
confess  that  an  original  tendency  to  believe  in  God 
belongs  to  the  human  soul.  And  such  an  original 
tendency  is  hardly  distinguishable  from  a  nisus — a 
germinant  belief.  This  disagreement  in  regard  to  the 
genesis  of  our  faith  in  God  is  generally  connected  with 
differences  in  Psychology,  or  in  the  mode  of  stating  the 
functions  and  the  early  operations  of  the  mind.  It 
must  be  conceded  that  those  who  hold  that  the  knowl¬ 
edge  of  God  is  intuitive,  have  often  failed  to  state 
their  doctrine  with  clearness,  or  to  set  it  in  connection 
with  acknowledged  principles  of  mental  philosophy. 

Our  own  position  is  that  the  belief  in  God  does 
not  originate  in  external,  traditionary  teaching,  like  a 
fact  in  history  or  science,  which  is  handed  down  from 
one  generation  to  another ;  it  does  not  originate, 
properly  speaking,  from  the  view  of  the  objective 
manifestations  of  God,  for  instance  in  the  works  of 
Nature,  or  the  course  of  history;  nor  does  it  flow  from 
any  empirical  source.  But  this  belief  is  potentially 
inherent  in  the  mind,  and  is  obscurely  present  in  the 
earliest  operations  of  intelligence.  Dependent  for  its 
full  explication  upon  instruction,  and  upon  the  various 


FAITH  IN  GOD. 


565 


proofs  which  corroborate  at  the  same  time  that  they 
explicate  and  develope  it ;  subject,  also,  in  common 
with  the  moral  sense,  with  which  it  is  vitally  connected, 
to  the  darkening  and  perverting  influence  of  evil,  faith 
in  God  is  yet  seminally  native  to  the  soul,  and  is 
seldom,  if  ever,  so  extinguished  that  it  may  not,  in 
favoring  circumstances,  again  revive,  and  even  assert 
itself  against  every  attempt  of  the  will  to  eradicate  it. 

The  tremendous  hold  which  religion  has  had  upon 
mankind  in  all  nations  and  ages  forbids  the  supposi¬ 
tion  that  it  owes  its  origin  to  tradition  merely,  to 
processes  of  argument,  or  even  solely  to  a  perception 
of  the  marks  of  design  in  Nature.  A  phenomenon  so 
deep  and  universal  must  be  due  to  a  profounder  cause, 
and  a  cause  more  directly  operative.  The  shallow 
theory  which  ascribed  religion  to  the  craft  of  priests 
and  lawgivers  was  long  ago  exploded.  The  theory, 
which  is  only  a  little  less  superficial,  that  religion  took 
its  rise  from  the  alarm  excited  bv  startling  occurrences 
in  Nature,  is  also  well-nigh  obsolete.  Impressions 
from  this  source  are  fleeting,  and  impressions  of  terror 
are  quickly  effaced  by  those  of  a  different  character, 
which  are  awakened  by  opposite  aspects  of  Nature. 
Taith,  moreover,  is  too  deeply  imbedded  in  the  moral 
feelings  to  be  accounted  for  by  this  external  and  acci¬ 
dental  cause.  If  it  be  said  that  religion  is  due  to  the 
personifying  imagination  of  uncultured  men,  we  have 
the  same  answer.  This  may  account  to  some  extent 
for  the  form  which  heathen  religions  take ;  but  without 


566 


THE  PERSONALITY  OE  GOD. 


a  prior  belief  in  the  supernatural  and  yearning  for  it, 
without  the  principle  of  worship,  and  the  sense  of 
accountability  to  a  higher  Being,  the  religions  of 
Paganism  could  never  subsist.  Nor  is  the  argument 
from  design,  important  as  this  argument  is  in  its  place, 
to  be  considered  either  the  primary  source,  or  the 
principal  ground,  of  the  belief  in  God. 

It  may  be  objected  that  the  belief  in  a  supernat¬ 
ural  Power  is  not  universal,  and  that  religion  in  some 
peoples  is  feebly  manifested.  The  Chinese  are  said  to 
be  such  a  people.  But  if  the  religious  feelings  are 
susceptible  of  decay,  the  same  is  true  of  the  moral 
feelings,  the  sense  of  ethical  justice  and  ethical  truth. 
If  the  feebleness  and  corruption  of  conscience  does  not 
militate  against  the  doctrine  of  a  native  and  universal 
principle  of  rectitude,  the  same  is  true  of  a  similar  low 
state  of  religious  convictions.  In  both  cases,  the 
seeming  exception  establishes  the  rule. 

The  two  essential  characteristics  of  the  human 
mind  are  self-consciousness  and  self-determination. 
The  one  is  indispensable  to  the  other ;  for  if  the  deter¬ 
mination  of  the  will  is  a  conscious  act,  it  is  not  less 
true  that  if  the  voluntary  power  were  absolutely  inact¬ 
ive  or  wanting,  that  distinct  separation  of  self  from 
the  world  without,  which  is  involved  in  self-conscious¬ 
ness,  is  not  supposable.  Now,  for  the  realizing  of 
self-consciousness,  the  mind  is  thus  dependent  upon 
the  existence  of  the  world  without  us,  and  in  our 
mental  states  are  always  found  elements  derived  from 


FAITH  IN  GOD. 


567 


this  outer  world  to  which  we  are  so  closely  united.  In 
this  dependence,  we  have  decisive  proof  that  the  soul — 
the  spiritual  part — is  not  self-originated.  At  the  same 
time  we  know  equally  well  that  it  is  not  derived  from 
material  nature,  for  it  is  toto  cjenere  distinct  from  the 
world  of  matter,  and  in  the  sphere  of  Nature  the  law 
holds  that  like  produces  like.  In  this  twofold  con¬ 
viction  lies  the  first  suggestion  of  an  infinite  personali¬ 
ty,  the  living  creator  and  God,  from  whom  our  finite 
soul  derives  its  being.  Intimately  connected  with  this 
presage  or  incipient  faith,  is  the  conscious  subjection 
of  the  will  to  an  authoritative  law  which  yet  the  will 
does  not  impose  upon  itself,  but  which  is  identified 
with  the  will  of  the  Being  from  whom  the  soul 
springs,  while  at  the  same  time  through  this  law,  his 
holy  character,  if  not  clearly  discerned,  is  indistinctly 
divined.  Thus  in  the  background  of  our  moral  and 
spiritual  natures,  God  is  immediately  revealed,  the 
ground  of  our  being,  at  once  our  Creator  and  Lord. 
Thus  we  can  understand  how,  with  every  fresh 
awakening  of  conscience,  God  is  vividly  present  to  the 
consciousness ;  and  the  natural  voice  of  guilt,  as  well 
as  of  dependence,  is  prayer.1 

1  The  doctrine  of  the  preceding  paragraph  is  presented,  in  sub¬ 
stance,  by  Julius  Muller,  Lehre  von  der  Sdnde ,  I.  101  seq.  Compare 
the  argument  of  Hugo  of  St.  Victor  from  the  existence  of  the  soul, 
and  the  similar  argument  of  Locke  {Essay  on  ihe  Understanding , 
B.  iv.  c.  10).  The  main  proposition  of  Locke  is  that  cogitable  exist¬ 
ence  cannot  be  produced  out  of  incogitable,  the  minor  premise 
being  that  the  human  mind  is  a  cogitable  existence. 


568 


THE  PERSONALITY  OF  GOD. 


It  should  be  observed  that  we  have  not  been 
framing  an  argument  to  prove  the  existence  of  God. 
What  we  have  said  is  rather  an  analysis  of  conscious¬ 
ness  for  the  purpose  of  unfolding  the  elements  that 
enter  into  it,  and  of  showing  that  the  consciousness  of 
self  involves  as  a  condition,  not  only  an  immediate 
knowledge  of  the  external  world,  but  equally  a  faith  in 
God.  The  world,  self,  and  God,  are  the  three  factors, 
which  are  the  elements  of  our  personal  consciousness.1 

It  is  the  prevailing  habit  of  German  writers  to 
describe  our  immediate  faith  as  the  consciousness  of 
God  [Gottes-bewusstsein].  We  are  said  to  be  con¬ 
scious  of  that  which  is  the  object  of  immediate  knowl¬ 
edge.  That  we  are  conscious  of  the  outward  world, 
or  the  objects  of  sense-perception,  is  phraseology 
sanctioned  in  the  philosophy  of  Sir  William  Hamilton. 
That  ive  are  conscious  of  self,  or  phraseology  equiva¬ 
lent  to  this,  is  current  in  speech.  The  external  object 
so  directly  manifests  itself  to  us  that  we  know  that  it 
exists.  Thus,  also,  self  or  the  conscious  ego,  is  so 
manifested  in  consciousness  that  we  know  that  we 
exist.  The  analogous  fact  respecting  the  Divine  being 
is  denoted  by  the  term  God-consciousness,  or  conscious¬ 
ness  of  God. 

The  phenomena  of  our  religious  consciousness 
would  be  imperfectly  described,  if  we  pointed  out  sim- 

1  That  faith  in  the  unconditioned  being  is  “an  original  factor  of 
our  thinking,”  not  derived  from  the  law  of  causality,  but  implied  in 
it,  is  well  shown  by  Ulrici,  Gott  unci  die  Xatur ,  p.  G06. 


THE  ROOT  OF  FAITH  IN  FEELING. 


569 


ply  the  belief  in  God  which  is  awakened  in  the  man¬ 
ner  delineated  above.  Vitally  associated  with  this 
awakening  faith,  is  the  attraction  towards  communion 
with  God,  or  the  inward  gravitation  of  the  soul  towards 
the  Being  in  whom  it  lives,  which  forms  an  essential 
foundation  of  prayer  and  worship. 

Attention  is  also  required  to  the  fact  that  faith  in 
God  is  primarily  a  matter  of  feeling.  They  who  are 
wont  to  consider  the  mind  a  congeries  of  faculties,  in 
which  thought,  feeling,  and  will  are  coordinate,  find  it 
hard  to  comprehend  this.1  But  when  we  look  to  the 
genesis  of  our  ideas,  to  the  process  in  which  intelli¬ 
gence  is  developed,  we  discover  that  feeling  is  antece¬ 
dent.  In  regard  to  the  knowledge  we  have  of  the 
outer  world,  sensation,  in  which  the  mind  is  acted  upon, 
precedes  perception.  Now  the  feeling  of  God,  or,  to 
use  a  more  expressive  term,  the  sense  of  God,  precedes 
the  distinct  idea. '  The  recognition  of  God,  though 
including  an  activity  of  the  intelligence,  is  grounded 
in,  and  pervaded  by,  feeling.  The  error  of  Schleierma- 
cher  did  not  consist  in  his  founding  piety  in  feeling,  as 
a  psychological  fact,  but  it  lay  in  his  confining  piety  to 
the  incipient  stage  of  faith.  He  would  shut  up  the 
mind,  as  far  as  the  exercise  of  piety  is  concerned,  to 
the  consciousness  of  its  own  state,  with  no  reference 

1  u  Eine  Psychologic,  die  aus  Erkennen,  Begehren  mid  Eiihlen 
drei  coordinate  Formen  des  Bewusstseins  macht,  hebt  alle  Mog- 
lichkeit  auf,  in  dieser  Sache  etwas  zu  erklaren.”  Nltzsch,  System  d . 
Christ.  Lehre ,  p.  23.  Compare  the  note  on  p.  27,  in  reply  to 
Schwartz. 


570 


THE  PERSONALITY  OE  GOD. 


of  that  state  to  a  distinct  personal  object.  It  is  just 
as  if  we  were  to  stop  with  simple  sensation,  instead  of 
through  sensation  advancing  to  the  perception  of  the 
world  without  us.  We  are  supposed  to  be  conscious 
of  a  certain  mental  state,  the  feeling  of  dependence,  as 
we  are  sensible  of  an  ache  in  a  limb,  and  there,  as  far 
as  piety  is  concerned,  the  matter  ends.  Schleiermacher 
was  also  wrong  in  resolving  piety  wholly  into  the 
feeling  of  dependence;  since  the  yearning  for  com¬ 
munion  with  God,  not  to  speak  of  the  feeling  of  obli¬ 
gation,  is  an  equally  essential  element ;  but  this  is 
comparatively  a  venial  error.  The  mystic,  who  makes 
feeling  directly  percipient,  is  still  more  at  fault.  As 
we  humbly  conceive,  the  truth  is  that  the  mind  is 
affected  in  certain  ways,  in  the  department  of  feeling, 
by  the  great  Being  in  whom  we  live  and  move,  just  as 
self  and  the  outward  world  make  themselves  felt  in 
consciousness ;  and  the  states  of  consciousness  thus 
originating  from  God  involve  and  beget  an  immediate 
faith  in  His  existence — a  faith,  however,  in  which  feel¬ 
ing,  as  it  is  the  root,  is  likewise  the  predominant  ele¬ 
ment.  Bor  example,  remorse  of  conscience  includes 
a  sense  of  accountability,  and  this  implies  a  sense  of 
God.  The  feeling  itself  is  God’s  work  in  the  soul, 
and  is  felt  to  be  so.  God  is  believed  in,  through  this 
feeling,  not  by  a  process  of  argument,  but  immediately. 
He  is,  literally  speaking,  manifesting  Himself  to  the 
soul.  It  is  true  that  men  may  discredit  the  manifesta¬ 
tions  of  God  in  the  soul,  and  disbelieve  in  him.  So 


ORIGIN  OF  FAITH  IN  GOD. 


571 


they  may  speculate  themselves  out  of  the  belief  in  the 
reality  of  the  external  world,  or  even  of  their  own 
existence.  They  may  deny,  and  have  denied,  the 
reality  of  a  moral  law  binding  on  the  conscience,  and 
quench  this  light  that  is  in  them.  The  belief  in 
God  is,  also,  largely  dependent  on  the  state  of  the  will ; 
in  this  respect,  that  the  alienation  of  the  will  and  heart 
from  that  Being  may  weaken  and  well-nigh  deaden 
this  faith.  Nor  should  we  overlook  the  truth  that  it 
is  also  dependent  upon  the  will  of  God,  who  may 
withdraw  or  intensify  those  manifestations  of  Himself 
in  which  it  originates.  Unquestionably,  the  effect  of 
sin  is  to  reduce  this  implanted  faith,  so  that  in  most 
men  it  appears  as  an  obscure  yearning  after  an  object 
distant  and  dimly  conceived.  This  state  of  the  sinful 
mind  is  described  in  Scripture  as  a  feeling  after  God. 
Men  grope,  as  in  the  dark,  for  Him  “  who  is  not  far 
from  every  one  of  us,”  but  whom  we  “  did  not  choose 
to  retain  in  our  knowledge.”  1 

It  is  remarkable  that  in  Germany  almost  all  the 
writers  of  note,  of  all  schools  in  philosophy,  unite  in 
regarding  belief  in  God  as  an  immediate  act  of  the 
soul,  and  as  rooted  in  feeling.  This  is  conceded  even 
by  the  Hegelians.  They  allow  that  such  is  the  charac¬ 
ter  of  this  faith  in  the  primitive  stage,  and  only  con¬ 
tend,  in  accordance  with  their  system,  that  such  faith 


1  Clear  psychological  explanations  relative  to  our  primitive  reli¬ 
gious  faith  or  feeling  maybe  found  in  the  excellent  work  of  Ulrici, 
Oott  und  die  Natur ,  pp.  610,  620.  The  entire  chapter  is  valuable. 


572 


THE  PERSONALITY  OP  GOD. 


is  only  a  rudimentary  condition  of  consciousness,  to  be 
supplanted  by  its  maturer  development.  Theologians 

who,  though  influenced  by  Schleiermacher,  have  con- 

% 

structed  their  systems  in  an  independent  spirit,  such 
as  Nitzsch  and  Twesten,  Julius  Muller  and  Rothe,  in 
common  with  Trendelenberg,  Ritter,  Ulrici,  and  other 
philosophers  of  various  schools,  substantially  agree  in 
the  doctrine  that  religion  originates  in  an  immediate 
faith,  and  emanates  from  no  empirical  source.  Such, 
in  fact,  is  the  old  doctrine  of  theology.  An  obscure 
knowledge  of  God — a  notitia  dei — was  held  to  be  im¬ 
planted  in  the  soul,  and  to  be  the  immediate  witness 
to  God’s  existence.  Such  is  the  doctrine  of  Calvin 
and  Melancthon,  to  say  nothing  of  their  forerunners 
and  followers.1 

What  now  is  the  purport  and  the  force  of  the 
several  arguments  for  the  existence  of  God?  We 
reply  that  these  proofs  are  the  different  modes  in 
which  faith  expresses  itself,  and  seeks  confirmation. 


1  Calvin  pronounces  it  an  incontrovertible  truth  that  “  the  human 
mind,  even  by  natural  instinct,  has  some  sense  of  Deity  ” — divinitatis 
sensum.  lie  affirms  that  “  men  universally  know  that  there  is  a 
God  ;  ”  that  “  some  sense  of  the  Divinity  is  inscribed  on  every  heart.” 
“  Unde  colligimus,”  he  adds,  “  non  esse  doctrinam  quae  in  scholis 
discenda  sit,  sed  cujus  sibi  quisque  ab  utero  magister  est .”  There  is  a 
natural  “propensity  to  religion”  in  men,  says  Calvin,  and  an  ine¬ 
radicable  knowledge  of  God,  which  manifests  itself  in  the  worst  men 
in  spite  of  their  will.  See  the  Institutes ,  B.  I.,  cc,  ii.  and  iii.  Me¬ 
lancthon  says :  “  vult  enim  deus  agnosci  et  celebrari ;  et  fulsisset 
illustris  et  firma  notitia  Dei  in  mentibus  hominum,  si  natura  homi- 
num  mansisset  integra.”  Loci  Communes ,  I.  De  Deo. 


THE  ONTOLOGICAL  ARGUMENT. 


573 


In  them,  faith,  or  the  object  of  faith,  is  more  exactly 
conceived  and  defined  ;  and  in  them  is  found  a  cor¬ 
roboration,  not  arbitrary  but  substantial  and  valuable, 
of  that  faith  which  springs  from  the  soul  itself.  Such 
proofs,  therefore,  are  neither,  on  the  one  hand,  of  them¬ 
selves  sufficient  to  create  and  sustain  faith,  nor  are  they, 
on  the  other  hand,  to  be  set  aside  as  of  no  weight. 

The  arguments  for  the  being  of  God  are  capable  of 
being  classified  in  various  ways.  We  shall  consider 
them  here  under  the  three  heads  of  the  ontological, 
the  cosmological,  and  the  teleological  arguments — the 
moral  argument  being  embraced  under  the  teleological, 
where  it  properly  belongs. 

1.  The  Ontological  proof  proceeds  from  the  idea 
of  God,  attempting  to  deduce  therefrom  the  truth  of 
His  existence.  The  germ  of  this  proof  is  in  Augustin. 
It  appears  in  its  riper  form  in  the  celebrated  argument 
of  Anselm.  The  objection  that  the  idea  of  the  most 
perfect  being  imaginable  is  after  all  only  an  imagina¬ 
tion,  Anselm  endeavored  to  parry  by  the  statement 
that  this  idea  is  far  from  being  an  arbitrary  notion,  like 
the  image  which  fancy  forms  of  the  lost  island  (the 
illustration  of  Gaunilo),  but  is  strictly  a  necessary  idea, 
in  the  sense  that  the  mind  cannot  escape  from  enter¬ 
taining  it.  The  argument  of  Anselm  stands  in  vital 
connection  with  his  Realistic  philosophy.1  But  he 

1  A  being  in  the  mind  and  a  being  in  re,  require  the  supposition 
of  a  genus — hence  a  being,  according  to  Realism — embracing  both. 
The  true  sense  of  Anselm’s  argument  is  best  appreciated  by  Ritter. 


574 


THE  PERSONALITY  OP  GOD. 


fails  to  show  that  existence  in  re  is  an  attribute  enter¬ 
ing  into  a  concept,  and  falls  into  the  error  of  inferring 
the  existence  of  a  thing  from  the  definition  of  a  word. 
Des  Cartes  assumed  the  existence  of  God  to  account 
for  the  presence  in  the  human  mind  of  the  idea  of 
the  infinite  and  perfect  being.  As  much  reality,  he 
thought,  must  belong  to  the  cause  as  is  found  in  the 
effect ;  and  this  holds  good  where  the  effect  is  an  idea. 
The  idea  of  the  infinite  and  perfect  God  cannot  be 
produced  in  the  mind  by  the  things  that  surround  us 
in  the  world.  It  implies,  therefore,  for  its  cause  the 
Being  himself.  This  reasoning  does  not  carry  full 
conviction ;  and  if  the  additional  fact  of  a  yearning  to 
break  through  the  bonds  of  our  finite  being  and  to 
commune  with  a  higher  Power,  be  introduced,  we  are 
brought  back  to  the  original  faith  which  precedes 
logical  argument. 

Yet  the  ontological  argument,  even  though  it  be 
fallacious,  is  not  without  an  indirect  value.  It  pre¬ 
sents  a  true  conception  of  God,  regarded  as  a  possible 
being.  The  being  than  whom  no  higher  can  be  con¬ 
ceived,  in  case  lie  exists,  exists  necessarily. 


Geschichte  d.  Christ.  Phil.,  III.  337.  The  validity  of  Anselm’s  argu¬ 
ment  is  maintained  by  the  Cambridge  Platonist,  Henry  More,  in  the 
early  part  of  his  Antidote  to  Atheism.  It  should  be  observed  that 
Anselm’s  argument  is  to  be  found  in  the  Proslog ium ,  and  in  the  Reply 
to  Gaunilo.  The  earlier  form  of  the  argument  in  the  Monologium 
resembles  more  nearly  the  argument  of  Augustin.  Yet  it  is  import¬ 
ant  as  showing  the  Realistic  foundation  on  which  the  later  argument 
rests. 


THE  COSMOLOGICAL  ARGUMENT. 


575 


2.  The  Cosmological  argument  starts  from  the  con¬ 
tingent  character  of  all  things  presented  to  observation. 
Their  changeful  and  dependent  character  implies  the 
existence  of  an  unchangeable  and  independent  Being. 
The  principle  of  causation  unquestionably  involves  a 
belief  in  a  First  Cause,  or  a  Cause  which  is  not  at  the 
same  time  an  effect :  otherwise  existences  are  traceable 
to  no  cause,  and  the  principle  of  causation  is  made 
void.  An  eternal  series  is  an  absurd  hypothesis,  since 
it  would  be  a  series  of  effects  without  a  cause.  Elim¬ 
inate  the  element  of  time  (which  is  not  a  cause),  and 
the  series  becomes  like  a  single  momentary  event, 
which  would  be  an  event  without  a  cause.  W e  are, 
therefore,  compelled  to  believe  in  something  which  is 
eternal  and  independent.  The  defect  of  the  argument 
is  that  it  contains  no  strict  proof  of  the  personality  of 
this  eternal  Being.  It  does  not  carry  us  necessarily 
beyond  the  Absolute  of  Pantheism. 

This  is  the  defect  of  Dr.  Samuel  Clarke’s  attempt¬ 
ed  demonstration  of  the  being  of  God  from  the  attri¬ 
butes  of  necessary  existence.  When  he  would  prove 
the  intelligence  of  the  necessary  being,  he  falls  back 
upon  the  a-jposteriori  proof  from  marks  of  design  in 
the  world. 

Thus  the  cosmological  argument  establishes  the 
existence  of  an  eternal  being,  the  cause  or  ground  of 
all  things,  but  does  not  fully  satisfy  the  mind  that  He 
is  intelligent  and  free. 

3.  The  Teleological  argument  is  the  proof  from 


576 


THE  PERSONALITY  OE  GOD. 


final  causes.  We  discern,  for  example  in  the  struc¬ 
ture  of  our  own  bodies,  and  in  the  material  existences 
around  us,  features  which,  as  we  involuntarily  feel, 
presuppose  the  agency  of  a  free  and  intelligent  cause. 
Through  the  action  of  our  minds  and  the  works  of 
man,  we  are  made  familiar  with  the  operation  of  intel¬ 
ligence  ;  and  when  we  are  confronted  by  phenomena 
strikingly  analogous  to  the  known  expressions  of  our 
intelligence,  we  are  authorized  to  attribute  them  to  a 
like  cause. 

The  theory  of  a  plastic  force,  or  blindly  working 
agency  in  Nature,  similar  to  the  supposed  working  of 
instinct  in  an  animal  or  of  the  principle  of  growth  in 
the  plant,  is  sometimes  brought  forward  in  opposition 
to  the  doctrine  of  final  causes.  The  objection  is  falla¬ 
cious  ;  since  the  admitted  “  blindness  ”  of  that  which 
is  conceded  to  operate  with  the  wisdom  and  precision 
of  intelligence,  is  the  very  circumstance  which  carries 
us  beyond  the  secondary  cause  and  inspires  the  belief 
in  a  free  and  intelligent  Power. 

Sir  William  Hamilton  affirms  that  the  argument 
from  final  causes  is  not  valid,  unless  it  be  presupposed 
that  the  human  mind  is  a  free  intelligence.1  It  is  true 
that  if  the  human  mind  itself  be  the  product  of  an 
unintelligent  force,  as  materialistic  theories  imply,  the 
external  world  might  not  irrationally  be  thought  to 
emanate  from  the  same  source.  Both  man  and  nature 
might  be  thought  to  be  due  to  a  common  cause.  It 

1  Hamilton’s  Metaphysics  (Am.  Ed.),  p.  22. 


THE  TELEOLOGICAL  ARGUMENT. 


577 


should  be  added,  however,  that  the  impression  made 
by  external  Nature  is  a  sign  of  our  inbred  conviction 
that  we  do  indeed  originate  our  actions,  in  the  exer¬ 
cise  of  intelligence  and  freedom  ;  and  under  this  suppo¬ 
sition,  the  argument  from  final  causes  in  Nature  retains 
its  force.  To  set  before  it  ends  and  choose  means  for 
attaining  them  is  the  distinctive  act  of  mind. 

The  physico-theological  proof,  or  the  proof  from 
design  in  the  works  of  Nature,  is  one  of  the  oldest, 
most  universally  impressive,  and  justly  convincing  of 
the  various  arguments  for  a  personal  God.  It  has 
been  set  forth  by  a  series  of  writers  from  Socrates  and 
Cicero  to  Paley,  and  acquires  fresh  illustration  with 
every  new  discovery  in  physical  science.  It  is  brought 
forward  in  the  Scriptures,  as  being  sufficient  to  render 
ungodliness  a  sin.  The  devotional  parts  of  the  Bible 
abound  in  appeals  to  the  testimony  to  the  existence  of 
God  which  his  works  present.1 

The  validity  of  this  argument  is  not  destroyed  by 
the  Darwinian  theory  that  all  living  species  are  des¬ 
cended  from  a  common  parentage ;  unless  indeed  this 
theory  is  allowed  to  run  into  materialism  by  bringing 
the  human  soul  into  the  same  category  with  animal  and 
vegetable  life.  Were  the  Darwinian  speculation  estab¬ 
lished  as  a  truth  of  science,  the  physico-theological 
proof  would  still  be  good.  Por  if  all  species  are  re- 


1  One  of  the  most  impressive  discussions  of  the  subject  of  Final 
Causes  is  the  chapter  on  the  Zweck ,  in  Trendelenberg’s  Logische 
Untersuchungen  (revised  ed.). 

37 


578 


THE  PERSONALITY  OE  GOD. 


(laced  to  one,  the  same  marks  of  design  still  remain  in 
that  one  comprehensive  species  ;  and  however  far  back 
we  go  in  tracing  the  genesis  of  living  things,  the  signs 
of  the  agency  of  a  superior  intelligence  are  indelibly 
stamped  upon  the  whole  system. 

Yet  it  must  be  confessed  that  the  physico-theologi- 
cal  argument,  considered  in  the  light  of  a  strict  proof, 
lacks  completeness.  In  the  first  place,  it  rather 
suggests  the  idea  of  a  builder  or  moulder  of  matter, 
than  of  an  original  Creator.  To  be  sure,  the  Being 
who  constructed  Nature  must  have  a  profound  knowl¬ 
edge  of  the  properties  of  matter ;  but  then  there  have 
been  philosophers,  ancient  and  modern,  who  have  held 
that  matter  itself  is  eternal.1  In  the  second  place, 
Nature  is  at  best  a  finite  product,  and  we  are  not 
authorized,  in  strict  logic,  to  infer  an  infinite  wisdom 
and  power  in  its  Maker.  To  identify  omnipotence 
with  exceedingly  great  power  as  Paley  does,  is  to  rea¬ 
son  loosely  and  to  abandon  the  proper  conception  of 
God.  We  will  not  dwell  on  seeming  infelicities  which 
meet  us  in  the  constitution  of  Nature,  and  which  occa¬ 
sion  perplexity.  Pinally,  it  is  possible,  without  any 
violation  of  logic,  to  consider  Nature  to  be  the  product 
of  unintelligent  forces  operating  in  pursuance  of  an 
inherent  law.  The  Pantheistic  hypothesis  is  logically 
admissible. 

1  Yet,  tills  objection  of  Kant  proceeds  on  the  notion  of  a  possible 
separation  of  matter  and  force,  which  science  does  not  favor.  See 
Ulrici,  Gott  und  Natur ,  p.  401. 


THE  TELEOLOGICAL  ARGUMENT. 


579 


The  office  of  the  physico-theological  argument, 
therefore,  is,  first,  to  educe  and,  secondly,  to  corroborate 
the  faith  in  God  which,  as  we  have  before  explained, 
is  an  original  possession  of  the  human  soul.  It  is  a 
probable  argument,  deriving  its  probability  from  the 
anticipating  faith  which  is  defined  and  fortified  through 
these  outward  manifestations  of  God  in  Nature. 

There  is  a  teleology  in  History,  as  well  as  in 
Nature.  Events  conspire,  through  long  periods  of 
time,  for  the  accomplishment  of  certain  ends.  All 
things  are  seen  to  work  together  for  the  securing  of 
these  ends.  The  thoughtful  student  of  History  is  not 
less  impressed  with  the  proofs  of  forecast  and  far- 
reaching  providential  control,  than  the  thoughtful 
student  of  Nature  is  struck  with  the  traces  of  creative 
wisdom  and  will  in  the  material  world. 

The  moral  argument  is  put  by  Kant  in  the  follow¬ 
ing  form :  we  are  made  for  two  ends,  morality  or 
holiness,  and  happiness.  These  two  ends,  in  the 
present  state  of  existence,  frequently  fail  to  coincide  ; 
the  former  is  chosen  at  the  expense  of  the  latter. 
Hence  wTe  are  obliged  by  the  practical  reason  to  sup¬ 
pose  a  future  state,  and  a  God  by  whom  the  system  is 
adjusted  or  completed,  and  righteousness  connected 
with  happiness. 

Ear  more  impressive  is  the  proof  which  lies  in  the 
more  direct  evidences  of  a  moral  administration  over 
this  world.  The  distribution  of  natural  good  and  evil, 
even  though  the  system  of  moral  government  is 


580 


THE  PERSONALITY  OF  GOD. 


unfinished  in  this  life,  is  sufficient  both  to  prove  the 
existence  of  a  divine  Governor,  and  to  evince,  as 
Butler  has  cogently  argued,  that  He  approves  of  virtue 
and  condemns  vice.  History  is  the  record  of  judg¬ 
ments  exercised  over  beings  endued  with  a  free  and 
responsible  nature.  Rewards  and  punishments  are 
allotted  to  individuals  and  nations,  and  the  spectacle 
is  one  which  is  adapted  to  convince  reflecting  minds 
that  God  reigns. 

Yet  this  argument  is  not  one  that  compels  acquies¬ 
cence.  It  is  possible  for  the  mind  to  rest  in  the 
theory  of  a  self-executing  moral  system  or  moral  order, 
to  the  exclusion  of  the  agency  of  a  personal  being. 
Nor  are  there  wanting  adherents  of  such  a  theory. 
True,  it  seems  untenable  save  on  a  necessitarian  phi¬ 
losophy  in  which  moral  liberty  is  sacrificed.  Yet  the 
theory  is  one  from  which  its  adherents  can  be  driven 
by  no  compulsion  of  logic.  As  in  the  case  of  the 
previous  arguments,  we  have  to  fall  bach  on  the  im¬ 
mediate  feeling  of  the  mind.  Faith  is  elicited  and 
confirmed,  but  not  begotten,  by  the  traces  of  a 
righteous  moral  administration,  which  are  observed  in 
the  course  of  this  world’s  history. 


INDEX, 

- 4 - 


CTA  PILATI,  origin  of,  192. 

Acts,  genuineness  of'  the  book 
of,  247 ;  proved  by  the  author’s 
testimony,  247,  by  its  moral  spirit, 
252,  by  its  relation  to  the  Pauline 
Epistles,  254,  by  its  contents,  256, 
by  its  unfitness  to  the  end  for  which 
it  is  charged  with  being  written, 
260  ;  its  alleged  discrepancies  with 
other  books,  265  seq. ;  the  speeches 
in,  269  seq. 

Alogi,  their  opposition  to  John’s  Gos¬ 
pel,  69. 

Anselm,  his  Ontological  argument  for 
the  existence  of  God,  573  n. 

Apocryphal  Gospels,  their  relation  to 
the  Canonical,  190  seq. 

Apocalypse,  authorship  and  date  of, 
123  seq.  ;  corroborates  the  book  of 
Acts,  278  ;  on  the  person  of  Christ, 
327. 

Apollonius  of  Hierapolis,  his  testi¬ 
mony  to  John’s  Gospel,  45. 

Apollonius  of  Tyana,  his  history,  527. 

Apostolic  Convention  at  Jerusalem, 

991 

LiLi  L* 

Arnold,  on  Inspiration,  9  ;  on  the 
mythical  theory,  372  ;  on  the  char¬ 
acter  of  the  middle  ages,  372. 

Artemonites,  their  use  of  John’s  Gos¬ 
pel,  58. 

Athenagoras,  his  testimony  to  J ohn’s 
Gospel,  45. 

Augustin,  on  miracles,  473. 


BARNABAS,  date  of  his  Epistle, 
158. 

Basilides,  his  use  of  John’s  Gospel 
67. 

Raur,  F.  C.,  on  Justin’s  quotation 
of  John  iii.  3,  52  n.  ;  on  the  Alogi, 
70  ;  admits  that  the  fourth  Gospel 
professes  to  be  from  John,  85  ;  on 
Luke  xiii.  34  seq.  (Matt,  xxiii.  seq.), 
103  n.  ;  on  the  Paschal  controver¬ 
sies  of  the  second  century,  108  seq. ; 
on  the  affinity  of  John’s  Gospel  and 
the  Apocalypse,  126  ;  his  theory 
respecting  the  authorship  of  the 
fourth  Gospel  examined,  131  seq. ; 
his  imputation  of  Dualism  to  this 
Gospel,  132 ;  his  exposition  of 
passages  in  this  Gospel,  133  ;  on 
the  relation  of  this  Gospel  to  the 
Synoptics,  144 ;  on  the  character 
of  the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel, 
148  seq. ;  on  the  date  of  the  first 
Gospel,  174;  on  Luke’s  Gospel, 
181  seq.;  on  Marcion’s  Gospel,  185, 
187 ;  on  parties  in  the  apostolic 
church,  205  seq.  ;  on  Gal.  ii.,  231  ; 
refutation  of  his  view  of  the  book 
of  Acts,  247  seq.  ;  his  theory  as  to 
the  Ebionites  and  the  rise  of  the 
Catholic  church,  285  ;  his  view  of 
the  Early  Doctrine  respecting 
Christ,  811  ;  his  exegesis  of  pas¬ 
sages  respecting  the  person  of 
Christ,  321  seq.  ;  on  the  doctrine 


582 


INDEX. 


of  the  person  of  Christ  in  the  sub- 
apostolic  age,  828  ;  his  theory  as 
to  the  conversion  of  Paul,  459. 
See  Tubingen  School: 

Bushnell,  Horace,  his  Nature  and  the 
Supernatural ,  80  n.,  522  n. 

Bleek,  49  n.  ;  51 ;  163. 
Bretschneider,  his  Probabilia ,  33. 
Buddiia,  his  character,  526. 

CELSUS,  his  testimony  to  John’s 
Gospel,  70  n. 

Christ,  his  repeated  visits  to  Jerusa¬ 
lem  proved  by  the  synoptical  Gos¬ 
pels,  99  seq.  ;  his  lamentation  over 
Jerusalem,  100  ;  date  of  his  cruci¬ 
fixion,  105  seq.  ;  his  discourses 
recorded  in  the  fourth  Gospel,  111; 
his  attitude  in  respect  to  the  cere¬ 
monial  law,  212  ;  the  Early  Doc¬ 
trine  respecting  His  person,  311 
seq.  ;  doctrine  of  his  person  in 
Matthew,  322 ;  in  the  Epistles  of 
Paul,  324 ;  in  the  Ep.  to  the  He- 
brews  and  Apocalypse,  327  ;  in  the 
sub-apostolic  age,  328  seq.  ;  in  the 
ante-Nicene  writers,  332  seq. ;  in  the 
Nicene  creed,  836 ;  his  Resurrec¬ 
tion,  379  seq. ;  credibility  of  his 
testimony  concerning  himself,  515  ; 
contents  of  this  testimony,  516  ; 
his  persistence  in  his  claim,  518  ; 
his  spotless  character  precludes 
self-deception,  520  ;  his  claim  with¬ 
out  analogy  in  the  records  of  enthu¬ 
siasm,  525  ;  contrasted  with  Socra¬ 
tes,  533. 

Christians,  number  of,  in  the  second 
century,  76. 

Clark,  Dr.  Samuel,  his  demonstration 
of  the  being  of  God,  575. 

Clement  of  Alex.,  his  testimony  to 
John’s  Gospel,  40,  79. 

Clement  of  Rome,  not  a  Judaizer, 
291. 

Cobbe,  Frances  Power,  criticism  of, 
28. 


Coleridge,  on  Inspiration,  11  ;  on 
the  nature  of  myths,  345  n. 
Confucius,  his  doctrine,  525. 

Compte,  his  scorn  for  mental  philoso¬ 
phy,  540  ;  his  ignorance  of  meta¬ 
physical  writers,  540  ;  the  merit  of 
his  philosophy,  540 ;  his  denial  of 
final  and  efficient  causes,  541  seq. ; 
his  theory  of  human  progress,  545  ; 
his  false  view  of  mythology,  547. 

DEISM,  inconsistency  of  modern, 
27.  ’ 

De  Wette,  92  n. 

Diognet,  the  Ep.  to,  on  the  person  of 
Christ,  335. 

I^BIONITISM,  its  origin  and  charac- 
J  ter,  283  seq. ;  Baur’s  theory  on, 
285  ;  did  not  have  sway  in  the  sub- 
apostolic  age,  310  ;  alluded  to  by 
Justin,  313;  when  divided  into  two 
parties,  317. 

Egyptians,  Apocryphal  Gospel  of  the, 
199. 

Epistle  of  the  Churches  of  Vienne 
and  Lyons,  its  testimony  to  John’s 
Gospel,  45. 

Essays  and  Reviews,  criticism  of,  1 5. 
Eusebius,  his  testimony  to  John’s 
Gospel,  39  ;  his  references  to  the 
use  of  Scriptures  by  the  Fathers, 
292,  293. 

Ewald,  49  n.,  243  n. 
jj^ICHTE,  his  system,  553. 

NOSTICS,  their  use  of  John’s  Gos¬ 
pel,  71. 

God,  origin  of  the  belief  in  Him,  563 ; 
the  belief  in  Him  an  immediate 
act,  564  ;  genesis  of  the  belief  in 
God,  566  ;  primary  seat  of  this  be¬ 
lief  in  feeling ;  Schleiermacher’s 
theory  respecting  this  belief,  569  ; 
that  faith  in  God  is  immediate,  the 
general  tenet  of  theology  and  phi- 


INDEX. 


583 


losophy,  571  ;  relation  of  faith  in 
God  to  the  arguments  for  his  exist¬ 
ence,  572 ;  the  Ontological  proof, 
573  ;  the  Cosmological  proof,  575  ; 
the  Teleological  proof,  575  ;  re¬ 
mark  of  Hamilton  on  the  Teleologi¬ 
cal  proof,  576  ;  relation  of  the  Te¬ 
leological  argument  to  the  Darwin¬ 
ian  theory,  577  ;  the  moral  argu¬ 
ment  for  the  being  of  God,  579. 

Gospels,  synoptical,  evidence  from 
them  for  the  protracted  ministry 
of  Christ,  99  seq.  ;  origin  of,  153 
seq.  See  Matthew ,  Luke. 

Gospels,  how  they  first  originated, 
202  ;  their  genuineness  established, 
360. 

Grote,  on  the  origin  of  myths,  345, 
370  seq. 

HEBREWS,  Gospel  of  the,  51,  168  ; 
posterior  to  Matthew’s  Gospel, 
195. 

Hebrews,  Ep.  to  the,  on  judaizing  ten¬ 
dencies,  277,  320;  on  the  person 
of  Christ,  327. 

Hegel,  his  system,  554 ;  his  philos¬ 
ophy  applied  to  theology,  557  ;  re¬ 
futed  by  Schelling,  558. 
Higesippus,  not  an  Ebionite,  294. 
Heracleon,  his  commentary  on 
John’s  Gospel,  62. 

Hermas,  not  an  Ebionite,  297  ;  on 
the  person  of  Christ,  335. 
Hilgenfeld,  43  ;  54  n.  ;  on  the  Gos¬ 
pel  of  Matthew,  174. 

IIippolytus,  67. 

Hume,  fallacy  of  his  argument  against 
miracles,  494. 

1GNATIAN  Epistles,  genuineness  of, 
309. 

Inspiration,  importance  of  the  doc¬ 
trine  of,  6  seq. ;  Rothe’s  view  of, 
10 ;  Arnold’s  view  of,  9  ;  Cole¬ 
ridge’s  view  of,  11. 


Irenaeus,  38 ;  testimony  to  John’s 
Gospel,  41,  78 ;  on  the  traditions 
of  the  Roman  church,  283. 

JEROME,  38 ;  testimony  to  John’s 
Gospel,  39. 

John’s  Gospel,  its  genuineness  ques¬ 
tioned  by  Bretschn eider,  33  ;  by 
the  Tubingen  school,  33  ;  defences 
of,  by  Bleek,  Meyer,  Bruckner, 
Schneider,  Ewald,  Ebrard,  and 
Mayer,  36 ;  external  evidence  for, 
39  seq.;  attested  by  Jerome  and 
Eusebius,  39  ;  by  Tertullian,  39  ; 
by  Clement  of  Alex.,  40  ;  by  Ire¬ 
naeus,  41 ;  by  Origen,  42  ;  by  the 
Canon  of  Muratori,  42 ;  by  the 
Peshito,  42 ;  by  Polycrates,  43 ; 
by  Tatian,  43  ;  by  Theophilus  of 
Antioch,  44  ;  by  Athenagoras,  45  ; 
by  Apollinaris,  45  ;  by  the  Ep.  of 
the  churches  of  Vienne  and  Lyons, 
45  ;  by  Justin  Martyr,  46  seq. ;  by 
Papias,  56  ;  by  Polycarp,  57 ;  by 
the  Artemonites,  58 ;  by  Marcion, 
59  seq. ;  by  Valentinus  and  his 
followers,  62  ;  by  Basilides,  67 ;  by 
the  Ophites  and  the  Peratae,  68 ; 
by  Celsus,  70  n. ;  by  tradition,  73 
seq.  ;  internal  evidence  for,  84  seq. ; 
shown  by  its  claim  to  be  the  work 
of  John,  and  by  the  manner  of  this 
claim,  84  seq.,  by  the  graphic 
character  of  the  narrative,  86  seq., 
by  its  general  structure  and  con¬ 
tents,  95  seq.  ;  its  statement  as  to 
the  duration  of  Christ’s  ministry, 
98  ;  as  to  the  date  of  the  crucifix¬ 
ion,  105  •;  its  relation  to  the  Pas¬ 
chal  controversies,  108;  its  reports 
of  the  discourses  of  Christ,  111; 
the  Hellenic  culture  and  theological 
character  of  its  author,  117;  its 
relation  to  the  Apocalypse,  123 
seq. ;  its  last  chapter  as  proving  its 
genuineness,  129 ;  its  genuineness 
defended  against  Baur,  131  seq. 


584 


INDEX. 


John,  the  Apostle,  his  residence  at 
Ephesus,  37  ;  his  knowledge  of  the 
Greek  language,  120.  See  John’s 
Gospel. 

Justin  Martyr,  his  date,  46;  his 
use  of  “  Memoirs  by  the  Apostles,” 
47 ;  alleged  use  of  uncanonical 
gospel  histories,  48 ;  use  of  the 
fourth  Gospel,  50  seq.  ;  his  devia¬ 
tions  from  the  Gospels,  201 ;  on 
judaizing  Christians,  813  ;  on  the 
person  of  Christ,  335. 

J/kANT,  his  system,  551. 

OGOS,  origin  of  the  idea  of,  120 
seq. 

Luke’s  Gospel,  its  origin,  180  seq.; 
value  of  its  prologue,  189,  248, 
367. 

'I/TARCION,  his  tenets,  59,  183  ;  his 
treatment  of  the  Gospels,  59 ; 
his  acquaintance  with  John’s  Gos¬ 
pel,  60  seq.  ;  relation  of  his  Gospel 
to  the  Gospel  of  Luke,  184  seq. 

Matthew,  Gospel  of,  its  relation  to' the 
Gospel  of  the  Hebrews,  167 ;  the 
prophecies  of  the  Second  Advent 
in,  169  ;  Tubingen  theories  respect¬ 
ing,  173. 

Meyer,  his  wrong  interpretation  of 
Papias,  161. 

Mill,  J.  S.,  on  Compte,  541  n. 

Miracles,  the  question  of  their  reality 
of  prime  importance,  12  ;  nature 
and  function  of  the  Christian,  471  ; 
not  merely  relative,  472  ;  defined 
by  Augustin,  Spinoza,  Schleiermach- 
er,  473,  474  ;  not  violations  of  nat¬ 
ural  law,  478  ;  not  contrary  to  ex¬ 
perience,  481  ;  possibility  of,  482; 
probability  of,  486  ;  fallacy  of 
Hume’s  argument  against,  494 ; 
special  function  of,  496  ;  fallacy  of 


objections  to,  500 ;  their  relation 
to  moral  proofs,  503,  why  no 
longer  necessary,  510. 

Mohammed,  his  character,  527 ;  his 
life  by  Sprenger,  527. 

Muller,  Julius,  on  miracles,  478, 
499 ;  on  the  genesis  of  the  belief 
in  God,  567  n. 

Muller,  K.  O.,  on  the  origin  of  my¬ 
thology,  341. 

Mysticism,  characterized,  8. 

Myths  and  mythology,  definition  of  a 
myth,  341  ;  origin  of  myths,  342 
seq. 

I 

AZARENES,  origin  of  the,  317  ; 

their  opinion  respecting  Christ, 
318. 

Norton,  his  view  of  the  Gospel  Me¬ 
moirs  used  by  Justin,  49  n.  ;  55. 

AINE,  his  Age  of  Reason ,  4. 

Pantheism,  diffusion  of,  26  ;  at 
the  bottom  of  modern  unbelief,  30  ; 
definition  of,  549  ;  as  held  by  Spi¬ 
noza,  549 ;  of  Fichte,  553  ;  of  Sch el- 
ling,  554;  of  Hegel,  555;  an  un¬ 
tenable  theory,  557  seq.  ;  error  of 
its  fundamental  position,  557  ;  fails 
to  solve  the  problem  of  knowledge, 
559  ;  its  false  conception  of  the 
Absolute,  559  ;  unable  to  deduce 
finite  from  infinite  being,  560  ;  its 
God,  not  the  Absolute,  560 ;  its  ob¬ 
jections  to  theism,  groundless,  560 
seq. ;  against  our  moral  intuitions, 
562. 

Paley,  his  Horae  Paulinae ,  254. 

Papias,  his  testimony  to  John’s  Gos¬ 
pel,  56  ;  his  testimony  respecting 
Matthew  and  Mark,  160  seq.,  363; 
his  work,  166  ;  on  the  origin  of 
Mark’s  Gospel,  177  ;  not  a  Judai- 
zer,  292. 

Parker,  Theodore,  character  of  his 
criticism,  450 ;  on  the  canonical 


INDEX. 


585 


Gospels,  450 ;  on  miracles,  451 ; 
his  doctrine  of  the  Absolute  Reli¬ 
gion,  452  ;  defect  of  Iris  theology, 
453  ;  his  position  as  to  Theism,  455. 

Pascal,  his  definition  of  a  miracle, 

47  V. 

Paschal  controversies  of  the  second 
century,  108  seq. 

Paul,  his  controversy  with  Peter, 
223 ;  his  last  visit  to  Jerusalem, 
224,  257 ;  his  relations  to  Peter 
and  the  other  apostles,  232  seq. ; 
his  circumcision  of  Timothy,  233  ; 
genuineness  of  the  Epistles  ascribed 
to  him,  275  ;  his  doctrine  of  the 
person  of  Christ,  321  seq. ;  his  evi¬ 
dence  of  the  Resurrection  of  Christ, 
379,  386 ;  theory  of  Baur  and 
Strauss  as  to  his  conversion,  459  ; 
testimony  of  the  authorities  as  to 
his  conversion,  462  ;  fallacy  of  the 
skeptical  theories  as  to  his  conver¬ 
sion,  464  ;  defect  of  Baur’s  theory, 
466  ;  his  conversion  not  a  vision, 
468. 

Paulus,  his  scheme  of  interpretation, 
346. 

Peter,  the  Apostle,  hi3  1st  Epistle, 
275  ;  why  thought  to  be  the  found¬ 
er  of  the  Roman  church,  307. 

Peter,  apocryphal  Gospel  of,  198. 

Philo,  his  conception  of  the  Messiah, 

122. 

Polycarp,  41  ;  his  testimony  to 
John’s  Gospel,  57. 

Polycrates,  37 ;  his  testimony  to 
John’s  Gospel,  43,  78. 

Positivism.  See  Compte. 

Pothinus,  78. 

Protestantism,  its  doctrine  concerning 
the  Rule  of  Faith,  7. 

Pseudo-Clementine  Homilies,  51  n. ; 
their  reception  accounted  for,  82  ; 
origin  and  character  of,  299  seq.  ; 
represented  no  considerable  party, 
302  ;  perverse  use  of  by  the  Tu¬ 


bingen  school,  304  ;  their  type  of 
Ebionitism,  284. 

Ptolemaeus,  his  use  of  John’s  Gos¬ 
pel,  68. 

I)  ATIONALISM,  characterized,  7, 
^19  seq. 

Renan,  his  Life  of  Christ  contrasted 
with  Paine’s  Age  of  Reason ,  4  ; 
his  disbelief  in  miracles,  13;  his 
concessions,  362 ;  his  legendary 
theory,  433  seq.,  440 ;  on  the 
monotheism  of  the  Semitic  nations, 
433 ;  on  the  date  and  authorship 
of  the  Gospels,  435  ;  his  interpre¬ 
tations,  444 ;  his  conception  of 
Christ,  448. 

Roman  Catholic  church,  its  Rule  of 
Faith,  7. 

Roman  church,  predominantly  Gen¬ 
tile,  305  ;  not  under  judaizing  influ¬ 
ence,  305  ;  tradition  of  its  founda¬ 
tion  by  Peter,  307. 

Rothe,  his  doctrine  of  Inspiration,  10. 

OCTIELLING,  on  the  origin  of  my- 
Ez  thology,  344 ;  his  philosophical 
system,  554. 

Schleiermacher,  his  interpretation 
of  ra  A oyia  in  Papias,  161  ;  his  hy¬ 
pothesis  respecting  the  Acts,  249 ; 
his  notion  of  miracles,  473 ;  his 
theory  as  to  the  origin  of  religion, 
570. 

SOHWEGLER,  81. 

Serapion,  on  the  Gospel  of  Peter,  83. 
Shenkel,  on  the  date  of  John’s  Gos¬ 
pel,  77  n. 

Skepticism  and  Unbelief,  tone  of,  1 
seq.  ;  diffusion  of,  5. 

Socrates,  his  idea  of  his  mission, 
530. 

Spinoza,  his  definition  of  a  miracle, 
473  ;  his  system,  549  seq. 

Stanley,  his  History  of  the  Jewish 
church,  16. 


586 


INDEX. 


Strauss,  D.  F.,  his  interpretation  of 
Luke  xiii.  34  seq.  (Matt,  xxiii.  37 
seq.),  100  seq.  ;  his  use  of  the  apo¬ 
cryphal  Gospels,  191 ;  his  mythi¬ 
cal  theory,  339  seq. ;  begs  the  ques¬ 
tion,  341 ;  his  mythical  theory  ex¬ 
plained,  347  ;  and  disproved  by  the 
belief  of  the  Apostles  and  of  Jesus 
in  his  Messiahship,  351  ;  by  the  ab¬ 
sence  of  a  body  of  disciples  to 
whom  the  myths  can  be  ascribed, 
354 ;  by  the  genuineness  of  the 
Gospels  of  the  canon,  360  ;  by  the 
want  of  time  for  myths  to  spring 
up,  366 ;  by  the  character  of  those 
times,  369 ;  by  the  faith  of  the 
Apostles  in  the  Resurrection  of 
Christ,  379;  by  the  testimony  of 
the  book  of  Acts,  389  ;  by  the  con¬ 
nection  of  the  supernatural  and  the 
natural  in  the  life  of  Christ,  390  ; 
by  the  arbitrary  character  of  the 
criticism  of  Strauss,  396  ;  by  the 
inability  to  connect  myths  with 
their  alleged  models  and  motives, 
407 ;  by  its  inconsistency  with  a 
fair  view  of  the  tempers  of  the 
founders  of  Christianity,  411  ;  by 
its  inability  to  explain  Christ  and 
Christianity,  414  ;  by  the  false  and 
demoralizing  philosophy  at  its  root, 
417  ;  his  restatement  of  his  theory , 
421  seq. ;  his  relation  to  Baur, 


421  ;  his  remarks  on  the  origin  of 
the  Gospels,  424  ;  on  the  use  of  the 
Gospels  in  Justin,  427,  in  Papias, 
427  ;  on  Mareion,  428  ;  spirit  of  his 
second  book,  430 ;  its  stoicism, 
431  ;  on  the  conversion  of  Paul, 
459. 

HPATIAN,  his  testimony  to  John’s 

-L  Gospel,  43. 

Tertullian,  his  testimony  to  John’s 
Gospel,  39  ;  on  Marcion’s  treatment 
of  the  Gospels,  60  ;  on  Valentinus’ 
treatment  of  the  Gospels,  63  ;  on 
the  tendency  to  monarchianism, 

€>0/7 
OO  /. 

Theophilus  of  Antioch,  his  testimony 
to  John’s  Gospel,  44. 

Tradition,  nature  of  the  argument 
from;  proves  the  genuineness  of 
the  fourth  Gospel,  77  seq. 

Tubingen  School,  its  rejection  of  mir¬ 
acles,  14;  its  theory  as  to  the 
fourth  Gospel,  34  ;  its  theory  as 
to  the  first  Gospel,  173  ;  on  Mark’s 
Gospel,  178.  See  Baur ,  F.  C. 

TTLRICI,  on  primitive  religious  faith 
or  feeling,  571. 

YTALENTINUS,  his  use  of  John’s 
'  Gospel,  62  seq. 


THE  VICARIOUS  SACRIFICE. 


Grounded  in  Principles  of  Universal  Obligation,  by  Horace  Bushnell,  D.D.  1  vol., 
8vo.,  552  pages.  Price  $3.00. 


PART  I, 

Nothing  Superlative  in  Vicarious  Sacrifice ,  or  above  the  Universal  Principles  of  Right 

and  Duty. — In  Dive  Chapters. 


CONTENTS. 


I. — The  Meaning  of  Vicarious  Sacrifice. 

II. — The  Eternal  Father  in  Vicarious  Sacrifice. 

III.  — The  Holy  Spirit  in  Vicarious  Sacrifice. 

IV.  — The  Good  Angels  in  Vicarious  Sacrifice. 

V. — All  Souls  redeemed  to  be  in  Vicarious  Sacrifice. 


PART  II. 

The  Life  and  Sacrifice  of  Christ  is  what  he  does  to  become  a  Renovating  and  Saving 

Power. — In  4  Chapters. 

I. — Uses  and  Relations  of  the  Healing  Ministry. 

II. — Christ’s  Object  in  the  Healing  of  Souls. 

III. — He  is  to  be  God’s  Power  in  working  such  Recovery. 

IV — How  he  becomes  so  great  a  Power. 

PART  III. 


The  Relations  of  God's  Law  and  Justice  to  his  saving  Work  in  Christ. 

I.  — The  Law  before  Government. 

II.  — Instituted  Government. 

III.  — The  Antagonism  between  Justice  and  Mercy. 

IV.  — The  Law  Precept  duly  sanctified. 

V. — Legal  Enforcements  not  diminished. 

VI. — God’s  Rectoral  Honor  effectively  maintained. 

VII. — Justification  by  Faith. 

PART  IV. 

Sacrificial  Symbols ,  their  Uses. 

I. — Sacrifice  and  Blood,  and  their  Uses. 

II.  — Atonement — Propitiation  and  Expiation. 

III. — Practical  Uses  and  Ways  of  Preaching. 


CHRIST  AND  HIS  SALVATION. 


In  Sermons  variously  related  thereto.  By  Horace  Bushnell,  D.D.  1  vol.,  12mo, 
460  pages.  Price  $2  00, 

“  We  do  not  know  where  to  look  among  modern  writers  for  any  discourses  so  full  of  the  vital 
and  necessary  elements  of  Christianity,  so  compact  of  thought,  so  searching  and  logical,  so  rich  in 
unostentatious  learning,  so  lucid  in  treatment,  so  attractive  in  style,”  &c. — Hartford  Ev'ng.  Press. 

“They  are  not  only  learned  and  eloquent  expositions  of  the  scriptural  way  of  salvation,  but 
warm,  mellow  and  delicious,  as  ripened  autumnal  fruits  gathered  in  the  garden  of  the  Lord. — 
A.  Y  Christian  Intelligencer. 

CHARACTER  OF  JESUS 


Forbidding  his  possible  classification  with  men.  By  Horace  Bushnell,  D.D.  1  very 
neat  volume,  bound  in  unique  style.  Price  $1  00. 

In  this  little  volume  we  reprint,  with  consent  of  the  author,  the  tenth  chapter  of 
u  Nature  and  Supernatural .” 


BOOKS  PUBLISHED  BY  CHAS.  SCRIBNER  &  CO. 


NATURE  AND  THE  SUPERNATURAL, 

AS  TOGETHER  CONSTITUTING  THE  ONE  SYSTEM  OF  GOD 

BY  REV.  HORACE  BUSHHELL,  D.D. 

1  vol.  8yo.,  550  pages.  $2  25. 

“  'Whatever  misgiving  may  exist  in  any  mind  in  taking  up  this  last  and  greatest  work 
of  Dr.  Bushnell’s,  we  believe  will  soon  be  swept  away  by  its  tide  of  argument  and  elo¬ 
quence.  It  deals  with  the  greatest  problems  that  can  engage  the  mind  of  man.  Dr. 
Bushnell,  with  a  clear,  penetrating  sagacity,  and  with  remarkable  grasp  of  thought, 
seizes  at  once  the  most  obnoxious  and  dangerous  features  of  modern  scepticism,  and 
submits  them  to  a  scrutiny  which  exposes  their  inherent  native  deformity.  The  author 
aims  at  a  noble  mark,  and,  in  our  judgment,  reaches  it.  The  work  will  rank  very  high 
among  the  literary  and  theological  productions  of  the  present  century.” — Hew  York 
Evangelist. 

“The  discussion  is  conducted  with  great  ability,  abounding  in  large  views,  profound 
arguments  and  apt  illustrations.  It  is  a  quiver  full  of  arrows  wherewith  to  defend  the 
citadel  of  Truth  against  the  assaults  of  Science,  falsely  so  called.” — Christian  Intelli¬ 
gencer. 

“  A  noble  monument  of  the  earnest  and  talented  author's  production  to  religious 
science  and  literature.  As  a  solution  of  the  difficulties  which  modern  schools  of  phil¬ 
osophy  have  raised  against  a  supernatural  system  of  grace,  we  regard  this  as  by  far  the 
ablest  work  which  has  appeared  since  Rationalism  opened  its  assaults  upon  the  Chris¬ 
tian  faith.  It  should  be  among  the  first  books  purchased  by  the  minister  in  making  up 
a  library,  however  scanty.” — Hew  York  Independent. 

WHAT  THE  QUARTERLY  REVIEWS  SAY. 

The  Horth  American  Review  says: — “ The  author  has  rendered  a  most  important 
service  to  Christian  Faith,  both  as  regards  the  external  facts  of  our  religion,  and  the 
more  recondite  experience  of  its  true  disciples.  We  accept  his  theory  in  its  essential 
features,  and  rejoice  in  the  ability  and  lucidness  with  which  it  is  here  developed.'’ 

The  Princeton  Review  says  : — “  It  is  quite  the  most  able  and  valuable  of  Dr.  Bush- 
nell’s  works  on  theology.  It  of  course  bears  the  imprint  of  the  author's  genius,  in  its 
fresh  and  brilliant  diction,  its  affluent  originality  and  bewitching  felicity  of  illustration, 
its  episodic  passages  of  marvellous  beauty  and  eloquence.” 

The  Hew  Englander  says : — “  To  many  who  care  little  for  the  name,  but  have  sighed 
for  the  reality  of  an  established  faith,  it  will  prove  a  benison  for  which  their  hearts  will 
ever  bless  the  writer.  *  *  *  The  delineation  of  the  character  of  Jesus  is,  in  our  view, 
the  finest  upon  its  theme  in  English  literature.  Wfe  do  not  hesitate  to  pronounce  it  a 
magnificent  book,  a  truly  Christian  book,  and  one  pre-eminently  adapted  to  the  times 
in  which  we  live.” 

The  American  Theological  Review  says: — “We  are  prepared  to  say  that  we  have 
never  followed  so  close  and  so  forcible  an  argument,  that  was  at  the  same  time  so  read¬ 
able.  It  is  one  of  the  freshest  books  of  the  6eason,  or  of  any  season  ’ 


BOOKS  PUBLISHED  BY  CHAS.  SCRIBNEli  &  CO. 


NOTICES  OF  NATURE  AND  SUPERNATURAL  CONTINUED. 

The  Mercershurg  Review  says: — “We  welcome  this  book  with  all  our  heart,  as  a 
most  valuable  accession  to  the  theological  literature  of  the  age.  Dr.  Bushnell  has  con¬ 
trived  to  throw  into  it  the  full  vivacity  and  freshness  of  his  own  nature.  It  is  rich 
throughout  with  thoughts  that  breathe  and  words  that  glow  and  burn.  The  book  is 
one  which  deserves  to  live,  and  that  may  be  expected  to  take  its  place,  we  think,  among 
the  enduring  works  of  the  age.” 


SERMONS  FOR  THE  NEW  LIFE. 

BY  HORACE  BUSHNELL,  D.D. 

1  vol.  12mo.  456  pages.  $2  00. 

Contents.— L— Every  Man’s  Life  a  Plan  of  God.  II. — The  Spirit  in  Man.  III.— 
Dignity  of  Human  Nature  shown  from  its  Ruins.  IY. — The  Hunger  of  the  Soul. 
V. — The  Reason  of  Faith.  YI. — Regeneration.  YII. — The  Personal  Love  and  Lead  ol 
Christ,  YIII. — Light  on  the  Cloud.  IX. — The  Capacity  of  Religion  Extirpated  by 
Disuse.  X. — Unconscious  Influence.  XI. — Obligation  a  Privilege.  XII. — Happiness 
and  Joy.  XIII. — The  True  Problem  of  Christian  Experience.  XIV.--TheLost  Purity 
Restored.  XY. — Living  to  God  in  Small  Things.  XVI. — The  Power  of  an  Endless 
Life.  XYII. — Respectable  Sin.  XYIII. — The  Power  of  God  in  Self-Sacrifice.  XIX. 
Duty  not  Measured  by  Our  Own  Ability.  XX. — He  that  Knows  God  will  Confess 
Him.  XXI. — The  Efficiency  of  the  Passive  Virtues.  XXII. — Spiritual  Dislodgments. 
XXIII. — Christ  as  Separate  from  the  World. 

The  Methodist  Quarterly  for  July  says : — “Our  American  pulpit  has  lately  furnished 
no  volume  presenting  so  deep  a  reach  of  thought  in  the  speaker,  or  presupposing  so 
nigh  a  moral  and  intellectual  appreciation  on  the  part  of  the  congregation.  *  *  Dr. 
Bushnell  has  a  deep  insight,  and  a  searching  power  of  tracing  the  relations  of  great 
truths  to  each  other.  The  overmastering  trait  of  his  productions  is  cool,  stern,  slow, 
moving  intellect;  yet  intellect  gently  interpenetrated  and  made  malleable  by  moral 
feeling — imagination,  too,  there  is,  but  none  for  its  own  sake.” 

The  Princeton  Review  says: — “ These  discourses,  although  they  apparently  differ  a 
good  deal  in  character,  bear  the  clear  impress  of  Dr,  Bushnell’s  genius.” 

The  North  American  Review  says: — “  In  original  forms  of  thought,  that  highest 
order  of  originality,  which  comes  more  from  nice  elaboration  than  from  wayward  spon¬ 
taneity,  it  is  surpassingly  rich.  Another  generation  will  peruse  it  as  a  book  that  has 
life  in' it — the  double  life  of  its  author  and  of  vital  truth.” 

The  Monthly  Religious  Magazine  says: — “Nor  are  these  sermons  written  on  tue 
same  level  with  any  of  the  author’s  preceding  productions.  They  betoken  a  deeper 
experience.  They  speak  from  a  richer  knowledge.  They  are  the  expression  of  a  faith 
wrought  patiently  out  by  a  harder  discipline.” 


FBOUDE’S  “ENGLAND.” 

- 4 - 

listen  xrf  inglaite  tom  \\t  Jail  af  Motojr  to  tire  geat| 

at  iliptetlr. 

By  James  Anthony  Froude,  M.  A.,  late  Fellow  of  Exeter  College,  Oxford. 

From  the  fourth  London  edition.  In  crown  octavo  vols.  Price,  $2.50  per  vol. 

( The  first  four  volumes  of  this  edition  now  ready ;  the  other  volumes  will 

follow  shortly. 

Vols.  I.  to  IV.  Reign  of  Henry  VIII.  Vols.  V.  and  VI.  Reigns  of  Edward. 
VI.  and  Mary.  Vols.  VII.-and  VIII.  Reign  of  Elizabeth. 

Mr.  Froude  has  shown  in  his  admirable  history  what  new  results  may  be  de¬ 
rived,  even  in  the  most  beaten  track,  from  a  thorough  investigation  of  the 
original  authorities.  His  researches  have  thrown  a  flood  of  light  over  the  per¬ 
sonal  character  of  Henry  the  Eighth  and  his  relation  to  the  great  event  of 
modern  history,  the  Reformation  of  Religion  in  Europe  and  the  British  Isles, 
that  it  would  be  in  vain  to  seek  elsewhere.  His  views  often  run  counter  to 
received  opinions,  hut  they  are  always  supported  by  a  weight  of  evmence  and 
a  classic  polish  of  style  that  place  him  high  in  the  rank  of  modern  historians. 

The  work  has  received  the  most  favorable  notices  from  the  leading  English 
journals,  and  has  already  passed  through  four  editions  in  England.  The  vast 
amount  of  fresh  and  authentic  materials  which  the  author  has  brought  to  hear 
on  the  periods  of  which  he  writes,  give  his  work  an  interest  and  value  beyond 
any  previous  history  of  the  same  events. 

“  We  read  these  volumes  with  the  pleasure  derived  from  interesting  materials 
worked  up  in  an  attractive  form.” — Edinburgh  Review. 

“  The  style  is  excellent ;  sound,  honest,  forcible,  singularly  perspicuous  Eng¬ 
lish  ;  at  times  with  a  sort  of  picturesque  simplicity,  pictures  dashed  off  with 
only  a  few  touches,  but  perfectly  alive.  .  .  .  We  have  never  to  read  a  pas¬ 
sage  twice.  .  .  .  We  see  the  course  of  events  day  by  day,  not  only  the 
more  serious  and  important  communications,  but  the  gossip  of  the  hour.  .  . 

“.  .  .  If  truth  and  vivid  reality  be  the  perfection  of  history,  much  is  to  he 
said  in  favor  of  this  mode  of  composition.” — London  Quarterly. 


With  an  analysis  of  the  Divina  Commedia,  its  Plot  and  Episodes.  By  Pro¬ 
fessor  Botta.  1  vol.,  crown  8vo.  $2.50. 

The  'New  York  Evening  Post  says  : — “We  have  seen  a  portion  of  this  work, 
and  regard  it  as  decidedly  the  best  account  of  the  poet  that  has  appeared  in  the 
English  language.  It  is  careful,  learned,  discriminating  and  eloquent,  written 
in  terse  and  eloquent  English  that  is  remarkable  in  the  pen  of  an  author  not 
native  to  our  soil.  The  analysis  of  the  poem  is  full  and  philosophical,  alive  with 
Italian  enthusiasm,  yet  calm  and  truly  catholic  in  its  humanity  and  trust.  It 
will  do  more  than  anything  within  reach  to  answer  the  question  that  so  many 
are  now  asking  :  “  Who  is  this  Dante,  whose  name  is  now  so  much  on  the  lips 
of  scholars,  but  who  is  as  much  in  the  dark  to  most  of  us  as  the  dark  ages  in 
which  he  lived  ?  ” 

Copies  sent  ly  mail ,  post  paid,  on  receipt  of  price. 


FORSYTH’S  “CICERO.” 


- » - 

%  It cto  of  (Surra. 

BY  WILLIAM  FORSYTH,  M.  A.,  Q.  C. 

With  Twenty  Illustrations.  2  rols.  crown  octavo.  Printed  on  tinted  and  laid 

paper.  Price,  $5.00. 

— — ♦ - 

The  object  of  this  work  is  to  exhibit  Cicero  not  merely  as  a  Statesman  and 
an  Orator,  hut  as  he  wras  at  home  in  the  relations  of  private  life,  as  a  Husband, 
a  Father,  a  Brother,  and  a  Friend.  His  letters  are  full  of  interesting  details, 
which  enable  us  to  form  a  vivid  idea  of  how  the  old  Romans  lived  2,000  years 
ago  ;  and  the  Biography  embraces  not  only  a  History  of  Events,  as  momentous 
as  any  in  the  annals  of  the  world,  hut  a  large  amount  of  Anecdote  and  Gossip, 
which  amused  the  generation  that  witnessed  the  downfall  of  the  Republic. 

The  London  Athenceum  says  :  “  Mr.  Forsyth  has  rightly  aimed  to  set  before 
us  a  portrait  of  Cicero  in  the  modern  style  of  biography,  carefully  gleaning 
from  his  extensive  correspondence  all  those  little  traits  of  character  and  habit 
which  marked  his  private  and  domestic  life.  These  volumes  form  a  very 
acceptable  addition  to  the  classic  library.  The  style  is  that  of  a  scholar  and  a 
man  of  taste.” 

From  the  Saturday  Review: — “Mr.  Forsyth  has  discreetly  told  his  story, 
evenly  and  pleasantly  supplied  it  with  apt  illustrations  from  modern  law, 
eloquence,  and  history,  and  brought  Cicero  as  near  to  the  present  time  as  the 
differences  of  age  and  manners  warrant.  *  *  *  These  volumes  we  heartily 
recommend  as  both  a  useful  and  agreeable  guide  to  the  writings  and  character 
of  one  who  -was  next  in  intellectual  and  political  rank  to  the  foremost  man  of  all 
the  world,  at  a  period  when  there  were  many  to  dispute  with  him  the  triple 
crown  of  forensic,  philosophic,  and  political  composition.” 

“A  scholar  without  pedantry,  and  a  Christian  ■without  cant,  Mr.  Forsyth 
seems  to  have  seized  with  praiseworthy  tact  the  precise  attitude  which  it  behoves 
a  biographer  to  take  when  narrating  the  life,  the  personal  life,  of  Cicero.  Mr. 
Forsyth  produces  what  we  venture  to  say  will  become  one  of  the  classics  oj 
English  biographical  literature ,  and  will  be  welcomed  by  readers  of  all  ages  and 
both  sexes,  of  all  professions  and  of  no  profession  at  all.” — London  Quarterly. 

“  This  book  is  a  valuable  contribution  to  our  Standard  Literature.  It  is  a 
work  which  will  aid  our  progress  towards  the  truth ;  it  lifts  a  corner  of  the  veil 
which  has  hung  over  the  scenes  and  actors  of  times  so  full  of  ferment,  and 
allows  us  to  catch  a  glimpse  of  the  stage  upon  which  the  great  arama  was 
played.” — North  American  Review. 

Copies  sent  ly  mail ,  postpaid ,  on  receipt  of  price. 


LORD  DERBY’S  “HOMER.” 


- e - 

Clje  fliatr  of  fioiiur. 

RENDERED  INTO  ENGLISH  BLANK  VERSE  BY  EDWARD,  EARL  OF  DERBY, 

From  the  fifth  London  Edition. 

Two  volumes,  royal  octavo,  on  tinted  paper.  Price  fY.BO  per  vol. 

Extracts  from  Notices  and  Reviews  from  the  English  Quarterlies,  &c. 

“The  merits  of  Lord  Derby’s  translation  maybe  summed  up  in  one  word:  “it  la 
eminently  attractive  ;  it  is  instinct  with  life ;  it  may  be  read  with  fervent  interest;  it  is  im¬ 
measurably  nearer  than  Pope  to  the  text  of  the  original.  *  *  *  We  think  that  Lord  Derby’s 
translation  will  not  only  be  read,  but  read  over  and  over  again.  *  *  *  Lord  Derby  has  given 
to  England  a  version  far  more  closely  allied  to  the  original,  and  superior  to  any  that  has 
yet  been  attempted  in  the  blank  verse  of  our  language.” — Edinburgh  Review,  January > 
1S65. 

“As  often  as  we  return  from  even  the  best  of  them  (other  translations)  to  the  translation 
before  us,  we  find  ourselves  in  a  purer  atmosphere  of  taste.  We  find  more  spirit,  more 
tact  in  avoiding  either  trivial  or  conceited  phrases,  and  altogether  a  presence  of  merits,  and 
an  absence  of  defects  which  continues,  as  we  read,  to  lengthen  more  and  more  the  distance 
between  Lord  Derby  and  the  foremost  of  his  competitors.”— London  Quarterly  Review, 
January,  1865. 

“  While  the  versification  of  Lord  Derby  is  such  as  Pope  himself  would  have  admired, 
bis  Iliad  is  in  all  other  essentials  superior  to  that  of  his  great  rival.  For  the  rest,  if  Pope  is 
dethroned  what  remains?  *  *  *  It  is  the  Iliad  we  would  place  in  the  hands  of  English 
readers  as  the  truest  counterpart  of  the  original,  the  nearest  existing  approach  to  a  repro¬ 
duction  of  that  original’s  matchless  feature.” — Saturday  lievieiv. 

“Among  those  curiosities  of  literature  which  are  also  its  treasures,  Lord  Derby's  trans¬ 
lation  of  Homer  must  occupy  a  very  conspicuous  place.  *  *  *  Lord  Derby’s  work  is,  on  the 
whole,  more  remarkable  for  the  constancy  of  its  excellence  and  the  high  level  which  it 
maintains  throughout,  than  for  its  special  bursts  of  eloquence.  It  is  uniformly  worthy  of 
itself  and  its  author.” — The  Reader. 

“  Whatever  may  be  the  ultimate  fate  of  this  poem — whether  it  take  sufficient  hold  of 
the  public  mind  to  satisfy  that  demand  for  a  translation  of  Homer  which  we  have  alluded 
to,  and  thus  become  a  permanent  classic  of  the  language,  or  whether  it  give  place  to  the  still 
more  perfect  production  of  some  yet  unknown  poet— it  must  equally  be  considered  a 
splendid  performance ;  and  for  the  present  we  have  no  hesitation  in  saying  that  it  is  by 
far  the  best  representation  of  Homer’s  Iliad  in  the  English  language.” 

AMERICAN  NOTICES. 

Tne  Publishers'  Circular  says At  the  advanced  age  of  sixty-five,  the  Earl  of  Derby, 
leader  of  the  Tory  party  in  England,  has  published  a  translation  of  Homer,  in  blank 
verse.  Nearly  all  the  London  critics  unite  in  declaring,  with  The  Times,  “  that  it  is  by 
far  the  best  representation  of  Homer’s  ‘  Iliad’  in  the  English  language.”  His  purpose 
was  to  produce  a  translation,  and  not  a  paraphrase— fairly  and  honestly  giving  the  sense 
of  every  passage  and  of  every  line.  Without  doubt  the  greatest  of  all  living  British  orators, 
he  has  now  shown  high  poetic  power  as  well  as  great  scholarship. 

From  the  New  Yorh  World  “The  reader  of  English,  who  seeks  to  know  what 
Homer  really  was,  and  in  what  fashion  he  thought  and  felt  and  wrote,  will  owe  to 
Lord  Derby  his  first  honest  opportunity  of  doing  so.  The  Earl’s  translation  is  devoid  alike  of 
pretension  and  of  prettiness.  It  is  animated  in  movement,  simple  and  representative 
in  phraseology,  breezy  in  atmosphere,  if  we  may  so  speak,  and  pervaded  by  a  refinement 
of  tasf  i  which  is  as  far  removed  from  daintiness  or  effeminacy  as  can  well  be  imagined.” 


* 


. 


V 


1 


* 


*  f' 


I 


■ 

. 


, 


. 


